9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t return could not be filed alongwith the report as assessee's counsel remained ill for a long time. The CIT(A) declined to accept the contention that the delay in filing the audit report was for reasonable cause and confirmed the penalty, apparently on the ground that there was default in not filing the tax audit report alongwith the return of income filed under sub-section (1) of section 139. 5. The assessee is now in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that section 271B contemplates three situations in which the penalty is imposable, which are (1) failure to get the accounts audited, (2) failure to obtain an audit report as required under section 44AB, and (3) failure to furnish the said audit report alongwith the return of income, filed under section 139(1)/142(1)(i). 6. The learned counsel submitted that there was no failure in the present case, in the first two situations, described above. The accounts had been audited and they had been obtained on 31-7-1988, i.e., on the specified date 31-7-1988 as per section 44AB of the Act. 7. It was next submitted that the assessee did not file the return of income under section 139(1) at all, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvited to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Premchand Nathmal Kothari v. Kisanal Bachharaj Vyas AIR 1976 Bom. 82, where the Hon'ble High Court interpreted the word "before" in the expression "before the 1st day of April, 1970" in Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Looking to the various sections of the Act together and harmoniously it was held that the word "before" was used by the Legislature in the context of the word "within" meaning thereby "not later than". It was further held that even if the dictionary meaning of the word "before" is to be adhered to, the meaning of the word "before" as given in Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary is 'previous to the expiration of'. It, therefore, meant before the expiration or not later than the 1st day of April, 1970. 12. Alternatively and without prejudice, the learned counsel submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay in audit by one day since the assessee was under a bona fide impression that the 1st date was 31-7-1988. The bona fides were established by the reasons given above. 13. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and will take up the earlier submission firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms are Form No. 3CB and Form No. 3CD. It is next to be seen what is the default, which is to be penalised under section 271B of the Act, which stood as under in the relevant year :-- "S. 271B. Failure to get accounts audited--If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or obtain a report of such audit as required under section 44AB or furnish the said report along with the return of his income filed under sub-section (1) of section 139, or along with the return of income furnished in response to a notice under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business, or of the gross receipts in profession, in such previous year or years or a sum of one hundred thousand rupees, whichever is less." 17. There is a link with furnishing the report of audit alongwith the return of his income filed under sub-section (1) of section 139. The last date for obtaining a report of audit was clearly "by that date" and not "before that da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substituted a new sub-section (1), which staggers the dates for filing the returns of income by different classes of assessees." 19. We have also gone through carefully the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Premchand Nathmal Kothari's case. The Hon'ble High court interpreted the word "before" in section 3 of Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act in the expression "before the 1st day of April, 1970." It was observed that the word will have to be considered and interpreted with reference to the context and the subject of enactment. It was no doubt true that a general principle of interpretation, where the words of the statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external aid is admissible to construe those words. It is only where the language is ambiguous, uncertain, cloudy or susceptible or more than one meaning or shades of meaning that external aid will be permissible. The following extract from a decision of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Gulfan v. Sanat Kumar AIR 1965 SC 1839 was relied upon :-- "Normally, the words used in a statute have to be construed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
