2009 (8) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 000/- levied u/s 271B in spite of the fact that the assessee was under obligation to get his accounts audited and to file the audit report within the stipulated time as provided under section 139 (1) of the I.T. Act - held that - the penalty under Section 271B of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1995, which came into existence with effec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lowed for filing the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961?" The present Reference relates to the Assessment Year 1990-91. The Brief facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows: As the turnover of the assessee exceeded Rs.40,00,000/-, it was required to get the accounts audited and to obtain a tax audit report in terms of the Section 44AB of the Act before the specified date. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upheld by the Tribunal on appeal by the Revenue vide its order dated 10.6.1998. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Durga Construction Co., (2000) 245 ITR 857 has held that the penalty under Section 271B of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1995, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X