TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhiana, for the asst. yr. 1998-99. Since the issue involved in the appeal and the cross-objection is common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the AO under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961. Brief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1998. Thus, it was contended that no penalty was leviable. However, the AO did not accept these submissions on the ground that since the audit report did not accompany the P&L a/c and balance sheet, the same was incomplete. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under s. 271B of the IT Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee impugned the levy of penalty in appeal before the CIT(A). It wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also examined the facts, evidence and material on record. From the facts discussed above, it is obvious that assessee filed the audit report on 30th Nov., 1998, i.e., within time. The only defect in the said audit report was that it did not accompany the P&L a/c and balance sheet. However, complete audit report along wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) have held that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Levy of penalty will not be justified in a case where there is a technical or venial breach of provisions of the Act. The Revenue has failed to establish that there was conscious disregard of the statutory oblig....