Punjab & Haryana H.C : The dispute in this case pertains to the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the respondent-assessee for failure to get the accounts audited and to file the return in time.

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

CIT vs. Sumer Chand Jain & Sons

Section 271B

Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91

Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 58 of 1999

9th July, 2001

Counsel AppearedR.P. Sawhney with Rajesh Bindal, for the Appellant : Suvineet Sharma, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J.:

The dispute in this case pertains to the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the respondent-assessee for failure to get the accounts audited and to file the return in time. The penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee had filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the CIT(A). However, the challenge to the order was accepted by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, by which the orders of penalty in respect of both the assessment years were set aside, the Revenue filed two appeals (viz., IT Appeals Nos. 58 and 59 of 1999).

Mr. Suvineet Sharma appearing for the respondent-assessee states that IT Appeal No. 59 of 1999, has already been dismissed in view of the judgment in ITO vs. Kaysons India (2000) 163 CTR (P&H) 75 : (2000) 246 ITR 489 (P&H). Mr. Sharma further points out that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the earlier case.

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the assessee had got the accounts audited before the specified date. It was not the requirement of law, at the relevant time, that the audit report had to be filed along with the return. Still further, the assessee’s explanation with regard to the delay in filing of the return has been accepted by the Tribunal. It has been found that the accountant was sick and, thus, the delay had occurred. In view of these facts, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that no ground for imposition of penalty was made out.

In view of the decision of the Division Bench in ITA No. 59 of 1999 and in ITO vs. Kaysons India (supra), we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

[Citation : 252 ITR 844]

Malcare WordPress Security