<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (10) TMI 543 - ITAT JABALPUR BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197183</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to furnish an audit report within the specified date was cancelled where the report had been completed on time and handed to counsel, but counsel omitted to file it. The ITAT accepted that the lapse was attributable to counsel rather than any deliberate default by the assessee, and treated that admitted omission as reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the report. On that basis, the assessee was found protected from penalty under section 271B.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2017 14:44:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 543 - ITAT JABALPUR BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197183</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to furnish an audit report within the specified date was cancelled where the report had been completed on time and handed to counsel, but counsel omitted to file it. The ITAT accepted that the lapse was attributable to counsel rather than any deliberate default by the assessee, and treated that admitted omission as reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the report. On that basis, the assessee was found protected from penalty under section 271B.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>