Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly vs Gopal Iron Industries

We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the order of Tribunal. The Tribunal has cancelled the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the income tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the audit report was obtained on 28th October, 1990. The report was filed along with the return on 31st January, 1991. During the assessment year 1990-91 there was no requirement for filing audit report before the specified date which was 30th November, 1990 and therefore penalty u/s 271B was not liable to be imposed. The view taken by the Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Gramin Sadhan [2000] 245 ITR 563 1 wherein this Court has held as follows:

Patently, during the assessment year concerned, the obligation u/s 44AB was merely to get the accounts audited by the specified date. It was not disputed that this was done and the audit report was procured before the specified date. u/s 271B also the penalty was leviable only if the assessee failed to get his accounts audited as required u/s 44AB. Thus, patently, at the relevant time, there was no obligation further requiring an assessee to furnish the report to the Assessing Officer before the specified date. This obligation has been provided subsequently by an amendment effected by the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from July 1, 1995. Therefore, the legal position as enunciated by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal is abundantly self-evident and no substantial question of law is involved... (p. 564)

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we are of the opinion that no question of law is involved. The order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. The application is accordingly dismissed.