Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2012 (10) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeal is reported to be defective in as much as certified copy of the order of the Tribunal were not enclosed and the typed copy of the judgment was required. 4. The copy enclosed along with the appeal is the certified copy issued by the office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing of the typed copy of the judgment is thus dispensed with. The defect will be treated to be removed. The appeal will be given regular number. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly has preferred the appeal on the following questions of law:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271-B of the Act? (2) Whether on the fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h not strictly in the required format of report of Chartered Accountant. In my considered view this can be stated as due compliance made by the appellant of provision of section 44AB of I.T. Act. As the audit report was filed in time and 2nd proviso to section 44AB permits such report, there is no case to attract penalty u/s 271B. The imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained." 8. The Asstt. Commissioner has filed appeal against the order of CIT (A). The ITAT by its order dated 4.4.2008 dismissed the appeal following the decision of the ITAT Lucknow "A" Bench in the case of District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No.143/LUC/2007. 9. The Tribunal has observed that in the case of District Coop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss to all the books, accounts, documents, papers, securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of, the society and may summon any person in possession of, or responsible for the custody of, any such books, accounts, documents, papers, securities, cash or other properties, to produce the same at the headquarters of the society or branch thereof. (4) Every person who is or has at any time been an officer or employee of a society and every member and past member of the society, shall furnish such information in regard to the transactions and working of the society as the Registrar or any other person appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) or any person authorised by him or the Registrar, as the case m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Lucknow v. U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd., (2005) 147 Taxman 477 (All) in which it was held that Section 273B gives a discretion to the Assessing Authority, which term shall include Appellate Authority and Tribunal also, in matter of imposition of penalty under Section 271B. If assessee succeeds in proving that there was a reasonable cause for failure to comply with provisions of section 44AB, the penalty may not be imposed. 15. Shri Srivastava has relied upon Section 273B in which Section 271B was inserted w.e.f. 10.9.1986, when from Section 271B the words 'without reasonable cause' were deleted. He submits that intention of such deletion under Section 271B was not to deprive the assessee from giving reasonable cause for not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e stipulated time as the auditor was not appointed by the Registrar by that time. The Rajasthan High Court held that when a reasonable cause has been shown in which the cooperative society required to get its account audited only from the auditor appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, could not get the accounts audited on account of delay, the income tax authorities had discretion not to impose penalty. 17. In the present case apart from the fact that the audit of the respondent-society under Section 64 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1963, has to be carried out by the Accountant appointed by the Registrar of societies, who has specific qualifications, there was an order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1464 (M....