2001 (8) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalties under section 271B of the Income-tax Act levying Rs.29,352, Rs.29,709 and Rs.48,163 for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, respectively? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave the reason that penalty under section 44AB is not automatic and that the accountant of the assessee was ill and ultimately expired in 1988, he cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal though confirmed the order of the Commissioner of I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t furnish the report along with the return under section 139 penalty cannot be imposed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Durga Construction Co. [2000] 245 ITR 857. Considering the submissions though we are not agreeable with the reasons given by the Tribunal that it is impossible to comply the provisions of section 44AB for auditing the ac....