COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PREM SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, New Delhi has referred to following two (sic) question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in sustaining the order of the CIT(A), cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, by holding that no penalty under the said section is exigible for failure to furnish the audit report under s. 44AB along with the return under s. 139 (1) if the same is furnished along with the return filed by the assessee under s. 139(4) of the IT Act, 1961 -

(2.) THE present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1990 -91.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the return of income by the assessee, by status an individual, was due to be filed by assessee failed to do so, penalty in a sum of Rs. 1 lac was imposed under s. 271B of the Act. The penalty was deleted by the CIT(A) which was confirmed by the Tribunal. Tribunal observed as follows : "Apart from what the learned CIT(A) has stated, it would suffice to say that the assessee obtained the audit report on time. Its filing was delayed only due to the reason that he filed his return late. Whatever be the consequences to be 1990 as there did not exist any provision whereby an audit report during the relevant assessment year could have been filed independent of the return. Various Benches of the Tribunal had have taken this view, including that of Allahabad."