Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER versus M/S. JALAN AGENCIES, GOLGHAR, GORAKHPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another v. M/S. Jalan Agencies, Golghar, Gorakhpur - INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 194 of 1999 [2004] RD-AH 514 (11 August 2004)

 

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 APPEAL NO.194 OF 1999

The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Allahabad and another                                          ...Appellants

Versus

M/s. Jalan Agencies Golghar,

Gorakhpur.                                                         ...Respondent

----------  

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

In terms of Section 44 AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent assessee was required to get its account audited and to obtain the audit report by 31st October, 1989.  However, the audit report was obtained on 26.9.89 but was filed alongwith return furnished on 16th January,1990.  Penalty proceedings under Section 271 B of the Act was initiated and the assessing authority imposed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as penalty which order was, however, set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  The Appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal had been dismissed.

We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and Shri A.K. Srivastava who appears for the respondent.  It may be mentioned here that filing of the audit report before the due date was made obligatory only with effect from 1st of July, 1995 by way of amendment in the Act by Finance Act of 1995.

Thus prior to 1.7.1995 no penalty can be levied for not filing the audit report before the due date.  The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gramin Sadhan(2000)245 I.T.R. 563 has held that for the assessment year 91-92 the obligation under Section 44 AB was merely to get the accounts audited by the specified date and there was no obligation further requiring the assessee to furnish report of the assessing officer before the specified date.  This obligation was provided subsequently by an amendment effected by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from July 1, 1995 and, therefore, prior to 1st July, 1995 no penalty under Section 271 B can be levied merely on the ground that audit report has not been filed before the due date.  We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision.  

In this view of the forgoing discussions, no question of law much less  any substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.  The appeal is dismissed in limine.

Dated : 11/8/04

L.F.  


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.