9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with the return on 28.7.1988. The assessee has not obtained the tax audit report before or on due date, so the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty under Section 271-B for Rs. 1,00000/-. The same was not only upheld by the First Appellate Authority but also by the Tribunal. – held that - , there was delay of about 28 days. At the relevant time, it is true that the assessee was not suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestions of law:- "A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders passed by the learned Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-III, Lucknow (Respondent No.1) levying a penalty of Rupees one-hundred-thousand under Section 271-B of the Act ? E. Whether the learned Assessing Officer (Respondent No.1), the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the assessee has knocked the door of this Court through the present appeal. With this background, we heard Sri N.K.Seth, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, who submits that the assessee was not under any obligation to file the audit report along with the return. He further submitted that the penalty was not initiated during the course of assessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year under consideration was supposed to be obtained on or before 30.6.1988. Admittedly, the same was obtained on 28.7.1988 and it was filed along with the return on the same day i.e. 28.7.1988. Hence, there was delay of about 28 days. At the relevant time, it is true that the assessee was not supposed to furnish the tax audit report along with the return but he was under obligation to obtai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
