Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CIT versus J.IND. INDIA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Cit v. J.Ind. India - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 72 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 1293 (10 May 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 37

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 72 Of 1998.

...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut.. Applicant.

Vs

M/S Jaishree Industries (India), Ghaziabad.         ...Respondent.

...............

Hon'ble R. K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " Act") for the assessment year 1991-92 for opinion to this Court.

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was legally correct in holding that the delay in filing the audit report but obtained within time could not be the cause for imposing the penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act?"

The brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal found that the assessee obtained the audit report on 27.10.1991. Specified date for obtaining the audit report was 31.10.1991.  There was no mandate in the Section to file the audit report before the specified date.  Tribunal held that no default was committed.

We have heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the assessee respondent.

We find that this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Durga Construction Co., reported in (2000) 245 ITR 857, held that prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 01.07.1995, the requirement was only to get the accounts audited before specified date and there was no obligation to furnish that audit report before the assessing officer before the specified date. There is no dispute in the present case that the audit report was obtained with the specified time.

Respectfully following the decision of this Court we answer the question referred to use in affirmative, i.e. In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as costs.

Dt.10.05.2005

Z/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.