COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAMKRISHNA STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THE assessee's turnover exceeds the amount stipulated under s. 44AB of the Act, 1961 in the asst. yrs. 1985 -86, 1986 -87 and 1987 -88. The assessee failed to get the audited report in terms of s. 44AB within the specified time. Therefore, the AO initiated the penalty under s. 44AB of the Act for aforesaid years and imposed the penalty for all these

(3.) YEARS . In appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) gave reason that penalty under s. 44AB is not automatic and that the accountant of the assessee was ill and ultimately expired in 1988, he cancelled the penalty levied by the AO. In appeal before the Tribunal, Tribunal though confirmed the order of CIT(A) but on the ground that it is not possible to file the audited report as required under s. 44AB. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that no evidence was produced before the AO for illness of the accountant. He further submits that reason given by the Tribunal for cancelling the penalty is also erroneous.