2025 (1) TMI 1192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w, the Tribunal erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271B of the Act? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in not following the order of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the Appellant, having identical facts?" 3. Ms Hariya, learned counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that the delay in filing the audit report was condoned in the case of Appellant's sister concerns, i.e. M/s. Maple Leaf Synthetics Private Limited and M/s. Orlando Synthetic Industries Private Limited by the Tribunal. She submitted that there was no substantial difference between the cause shown in the case of the two sister concerns and the present Appellant. The mere circumstance that the delay in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cordingly, he submitted that this Appeal ought to be dismissed. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our consideration. 7. This Appeal concerns the Assessment Year 1986-1987. Therefore, the previous year would be 1985-1986. 8. There is a record, and further, it is undisputed that the Appellant group was raided on 30 March 1984, 27 July 1984, and 2 November 1985. The authorities seized and took several books of accounts because of these raids. The Respondents have not disputed this fact, and even the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted it. 9. The sister concerns filed their tax returns and audit report with some delay. Penalty proceedings were initiated against them; however, the cause they showed was ultimately accepted,....