JUDGMENT
C. L. Bokolia (Accountant Member)
1. All these appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) taking the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Act.
2. The facts of all these appeals are that the assessee was required to obtain tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act within the prescribed period. The prescribed period for all these assessees was October 31st of the respective assessment years. It is also revealed from the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that in all these cases, the assessee obtained the tax audit report on or before October 31st of the respective years though the same was filed along with the return of income which was, however, belated. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings and imposed the same. The assessee preferred appeal against these orders of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after following the decision of the various Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cases of (i) P. C. Mohan v. Asst. CIT [1993] 45 ITD 251 (Bang), (ii) ITO v. Mohinder Kumar [1992] 42 ITD 384 (Delhi) and (iii) Auto Square v. ITO [1992] 43 ITD 259 (Patna). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that since the assessee has obtained tax audit report within
the prescribed time, he has complied with the requirements of Section 44AB and hence no penalty is leviable in these cases. Against this decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue has come before us.
3. We have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record.
4. After going through the facts of these cases and also the case law relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be considered as perverse. This being so, I decline to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. In I. T. A. No. 3321/Delhi of 1995, the contention of the assessee was that the assessee was only a share broker and the gross receipt has reflected in the books represents dealing on behalf of the client from whom the appellant had received only commission. Therefore, he is not required to obtain any tax audit report. On this account, I fully agree with the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hence decline to interfere on this account also.
6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.