INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. KAYSONS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of six appeals bearing ITA Nos. 39, 106, 132, 133, 135 and 139 of 1999 involving common questions of law and facts.

(2.) THE Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal holding that no penalty under S. 271B was leviable under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Appeal No. 39 of 1999. The assessee filed its return of income on 31st Dec., 1990, which was accompanied by the audit report, dt. 28th Oct., 1990, obtained by it under S. 44AB of the Act. The AO levied the penalty under S. 271B of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to file the return along with the audit report on or before the specified date which in this case was 30th Nov.,1990. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who cancelled the penalty on the ground that the penalty under the said provision was imposable only if either the accounts are not audited by the prescribed date or the audited accounts are not filed along with the return of income. Thus, according to him, no penalty under S. 271B could be levied for not furnishing the return of income along with the audit report on or before the specified date. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") which upheld the order of the CIT(A) by following one of its earlier orders in another case. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the Revenue has preferred this appeal under S. 260A of the Act.

(3.) WE have heard the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. To resolve the point at issue, it would be useful to notice the provisions of S. 44AB and 271B of the Act as they existed before 1st April, 1995 :