2005 (4) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for opinion to this court: "1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in vacating the confirmation of the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act at Rs. 32,548 for the assessment year 1987-88? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the penalty order is also required to be vacated on account of bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of filing of the return of income penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act were initiated in respect of both the assessment years and the Assessing Officer after giving opportunity of hearing imposed sums of Rs. 23,548 and Rs. 37,583, respectively, as penalty. This order has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, in further appeal, the Tribunal has deleted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the ground that it is excessive. In any event, the penalty cannot be reduced below the minimum prescribed. Sri R.S. Agarwal submitted that as the Tribunal had accepted the explanation furnished by the respondent-assessee for not getting the books of account audited within the time, the penalty has rightly been deleted by the Tribunal. The said finding having not been challenged by the Revenue, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty to be imposed. We find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and materials on record and as the Tribunal has accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-assessee for not getting its books of account audited within the prescribed time it cannot be said that the Tribunal had committed any infirmity in deleting the penalty. The explanation give....