ORDER
P.M. Jagtap, A.M.
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Jodhpur, dt. 2nd May, 1995, confirming the penalty of Rs. 32,200 imposed under Section 271B.
2. In this case the AO imposed a penalty under Section 271B for failure on the part of the assessee to file audit report along with the return of income for asst. yr. 1993-94 by the due date i.e., 31st Oct., 1993, as per the provisions of Section 44AB. The matter was carried before the learned CIT(A) who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before us.
3. At the time of hearing, the representatives of both the sides agreed that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the direction of this Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Shanker Lal Agarwal & Co. (2000) 69 TTJ (Jd) 463.
4. We have heard both the parties and also perused the material on record. It is observed that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Bench in the case of Shankerlal Agarwal (supra), wherein it has been held that only obtaining of the report before the due date was required under Section 44AB prior to 1st July, 1995, in the case of return filed under Section 139(4) and, therefore, the penalty cannot be levied under Section 271B where the report was obtained before the due date, but the same was furnished along with the return of income filed belatedly under Section 139(4). It is also observed that similar” views have been expressed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of ITO v. Kaysons India cited by the learned counsel for the assessee.
5. In the present case the audit report as required under Section 44AB has been obtained on 29th Oct., 1993, and there is no dispute about the same. Subsequently, the same has been furnished by the assessee along with the return of income for asst. yr. 1993-94 filed on 22nd April, 1994, under Section 139(4). Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the aforesaid decision of this Bench as well as that of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, we hold that the penalty cannot be levied under Section 271B in this case. The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty under Section 271B is, therefore, reversed and the AO is directed to cancel the penalty.
6. The appeal is allowed.