J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) These three income -tax appeals filed by the appellant -assessee under S. 260A of the IT Act (for short, "IT Act") are directed against the order passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for snort, "Tribunal") by which the Tribunal, while affirming the order passed by the AO and reversing the order passed by the CIT(A), has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant -assessee. It relates to asst. yr. 2007 -08 (sic). Since the facts and controversy involved is identical, all these three appeals are decided by this common order.
(2.) The DB IT Appeal No. 15 of 2007 was admitted vide order dt. 26th March, 2007 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in sustaining the imposition of the penalty under S. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, despite the fact that the audit report was obtained under S. 44AB before the specified date and the same was filed along with return of income? 2. Whether non -communication of the fact of changed jurisdiction of the AO under S. 127 of the Act is sufficient not to impose the penalty in view of the overriding provisions contained in S. 273B of the Act -
(3.) The DB IT Appeal No. 2 of 2007 was admitted vide order dt. 13th Feb., 2007 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in sustaining the imposition of the penalty under S. 271B for furnishing the audit report after the date specified under S. 44AB to the changed jurisdictional AO in the facts and circumstances where the audit report under S. 44AB had been obtained on or before the specified date and the same was filed along with return of income under S. 139(4) more so where the learned Chief CIT or the CIT undisputedly has failed to comply with the statutory mandate enshrined in S. 127 to communicate the facts of changed jurisdiction to appellant -;