AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has supplied the photo copies of the paper -books for the purposes of reconstruction of the files as the same were burnt in fire which took place in the premises of this Court. The same are taken on record and are treated to be reconstructed files.
(2.) THIS order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 494 and 495 of 2005 as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 494 of 2005. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) in ITA No. 657/CHANDI/2001, for the assessment year 1996 -97, claiming the following substantial question of law: - "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.1 lac levied u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996 -97 despite the fact that Market Committee had turnover exceeding the limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act and had failed to get its accounts audited before the specified date and furnish the audit report within the period prescribed?"
(3.) PUT shortly, the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee filed its return on 13.2.1997 for the assessment year 1996 -97 declaring nil income by giving a note in the computation of income that the income received from house property by it was exempted under Section 10(20) of the Act. The assessee earned income from house property amounting to Rs.7,72,300/ - and TDS had been deducted thereon by the payer of the rent, the assessee sought refund of the TDS amount on the ground of the income being exempted. In response to the notice issued to the assessee, it filed income and expenditure account showing total receipt of Rs.7,30,58,508.30. Subsequently, the assessee had also furnished the breakup of this income as: - JUDGEMENT_764_TLP&H0_2012.htm;