2006 (3) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposed by the Assessing Officer and that penalty has been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The quantum of penalty is only Rs. 32,518. Under Instruction No. 1979, dated 27th March, 2000, the Central Board of Direct Taxes fixed monitory limits for appeals to be filed by the Dept. before various appellate authorities. Under this instruction, the revenue is not entitled for filing the appeal before the Tribunal if revenue effect does not exceed the monitory limit of Rs. 1 lakh. This monitory limit has been raised to Rs. 2 lakhs by the Board vide recent instruction. 4. Keeping in view, the monitory limit fixed by the Board for filing appeal, this appeal requires to be dismissed on this ground. However, it will be u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is duties. 8. After considering the above, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty after observing as under : "From the facts enunciated above, it is noted that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in the non-compliance by the firm of the provisions of section 44AB. In the first place, certain books of account relevant to the completion of the accounts were with the Assessing Officer. Secondly, the accountant who was conversant with the accounts of the firm and the other firms was not in a position to attend to his duties. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in ITO v. Nanak Singh Guliani has held that the provision of section 271B given a discretion to the Assessing Officer not to impose penalty in cases ....