| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2699 2005 SLD 2699 (2005) 279 ITR 113 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 142 OF 1999 JANUARY 18, 2005
G.S. SINGHVI AND VINEY MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT REFERENCE No. 142 OF 1999 JANUARY 18, 2005
G.S. SINGHVI AND VINEY MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax*
v.
Haryana Agro Services
Law:
Section:
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to get accounts audited - Assessment year 1990-91 - For assessment year in question, assessee got its accounts audited within specified period but audit report was filed with return after 26 days of specified date - Assessing Officer issued notice under section 271B proposing to impose penalty and thereafter, imposed impugned penalty - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside penalty order by observing that assessee had substantially complied with requirements of filing of audit report - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) did not commit any illegality by setting aside penalty order - Held, yes CASES REFERRED TO ITO v. Kaysons India [2000] 246 ITR 489/[2001] 116 Taxman 525 (Punj. & Har.) [Para 3], Mohan Trading Co. v. Union of India[1985] 156 ITR 134/[1986] 29 Taxman 54 (MP) [Para 4], CIT v. Ramkrishna Stores [2002] 253 ITR 175/[2003] 127 Taxman 24(Cal.) [Para 4], ITO v. Nanak Singh Guliani [2002] 257 ITR 677 (MP) [Para 5], CIT v. Capital Electronics (Gariahat) [2003] 261 ITR 4/129 Taxman 731 (Cal.) [Para 6], CIT v. Ashoka Dairy [2005] (2005) 279 ITR 32 (Punj. & Har.) [Para 7], CIT v. Punjab Financial Corpn.[2002] 254 ITR 6/ 121 Taxman 656 (Punj. & Har.) [Para 8]. Rajesh Bindal for the Applicant. JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench "C" New Delhi) (for short, "the Tribunal"), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in interpreting the provisions of section 271B and thereby confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the penalty of Rs. 54,269 imposed under section 271B by the Assessing Officer?" 2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee got its accounts audited on July 14, 1990, but the said report was filed with the return on December 26, 1990, i.e., after 26 days of the specified date (November 30, 1990). The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 271B of the Income-tax…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492