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

....of law under section 256(1) of the Income-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 r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... report had not been obtained before the due date 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). Howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under the statute and it cannot be deleted only on 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 fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were not required to be initiated, much less any penalty 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 inf....