Substantial question of law rejected where delayed return and later filed audit report on admitted facts did not justify interference.

The audit report was obtained within the prescribed time, but the return was filed late without enclosing it, and a later return was filed with the report attached. On these admitted facts, the HC held that the proposed issues did not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, for interference under appeal. The court therefore found no legal basis to disturb the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order concerning delayed filing of the return without enclosing the audit report filed within time.

Analysis: The appeal was examined on the admitted facts that the audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time, but the return was not filed within the due date and the delayed return was filed without the audit report. A further return was filed later with the audit report enclosed. On these facts, the Court found that the proposed questions did not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was dismissed.

---