9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the penalty of Rs. 90,000 levied under s. 271-B of the IT Act. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: "1. Because the Courts below were not justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 90,000 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93. 2. Because the amounts maintained by maintained by the co-operative society are required to be audited under the Co-operative Societies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts audited and furnish the audit report under s. 44AB of the Act. The AO, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 90,000 for the default as the assessee failed to offer any explanation. Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society, thus required to be audited its accounts under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under the State Acts. Further, if the accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case where such person is required by or under any other law to get his accounts audited, it shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of this section if such person gets the accounts, of such business or profession audited under such law before the specified date and furnished by that date the report of the audit as required under such other law and a further report in the form prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We further noted that the penalty imposed cannot be held justified for another reason also namely that there was reasonable cause in not submitting tax audit report as the appellant bank which is part of U.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. was under the bona fide belief that the audit report as given by statutory auditors was sufficient compliance with legal requirement of furnishing audit report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
