2019 (3) TMI 1466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....PH SC FOR INCOME TAX For The Respondent : ADV. SRI. S. ARUN RAJ JUDGMENT Ashok Menon, J The assessee firm, engaged in the business of civil construction, and having a turnover exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs was under obligation to file tax audit report under Section 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) before 31.10.2004. The assessee filed the report along with the return of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correct income of the assessee and that, no prejudice is caused to the Revenue because of the delay. Hence, the ITAT held that this is not a case fit for levying penalty under Section 271B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by this finding of the ITAT, the Revenue is before us raising the following questions of law as re-framed by us: (1) Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....casioned the delay. 7. The reasons supplied for the delay is that the Accountant of the firm had left his job abruptly, without disclosing the password to the assessee. The entries in the computer, could not therefore, be updated. This caused the delay of two months in uploading the audit report together with the returns. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue is that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....less. The provision of Section 271B of the Act makes it clear that the imposition of penalty for non-compliance with the provision of Section 44AB is not mandatory, though the filing of such report may be mandatory, as the word used in Section 44AB is 'shall'. But the the word 'may' used in section 271B gives discretion to the Assessing Officer to impose penalty or not to impose pe....