- (1.) 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 imposed. The view taken by the Tribunal is in conformity with the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Gramin Sadhan (2000) 164 CTR (All) 226 : (2000) 245 ITR 563 (All) wherein this Court has held as follows : "Patently, during the assessment year concerned, the obligation under 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. Under s. 271B also the penalty was leviable only if the assessee failed to get his accounts audited as required under s. 44AB. Thus, patently, at the relevant time, there was no obligation further requiring an assessee to furnish the report to the AO before the specified date. This obligation has been provided subsequently by an amendment effected by is abundantly self -evident and no substantial question of law is involved..."
(2.) 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.;