https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762276 Where the tax audit report was already before the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment, the compliance purpose of section 44AB read with section 139 was treated as satisfied. On those facts, levy of penalty under section 271B was considered unwarranted, because the report had been furnished in time for assessment and the legislative object had been met. The attempted use of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to direct such penalty was therefore held unjustified and was quashed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762276 Where the tax audit report was already before the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment, the compliance purpose of section 44AB read with section 139 was treated as satisfied. On those facts, levy of penalty under section 271B was considered unwarranted, because the report had been furnished in time for assessment and the legislative object had been met. The attempted use of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to direct such penalty was therefore held unjustified and was quashed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762276