mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 934 OF 1996 M/s. Tejina Steel Company ..Petitioner Vs, Assessing Officer & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Vaishali Thale with Ms. Varsha L. Palav for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the respondents imposing penalty of Rs.1.00 lac under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 31st March, 1994 on the ground that the audit report under Section 44AB had not been furnished along with the return filed on 10th January, 1994 and that the audit report was due on or before 31st October, 1992. A reply was filed on 15th July, 1994 contending that the audit report under Section 44AB was obtained before the due date on 31st October, 1992 and that it was filed with the return. The respondent No.1 not satisfied with the reply was pleased to hold that the audit report is dated 31st October, 1992. Return of income was filed on 10th January, 1994 and proceeded on the footing that the reply does not make it clear as to what was the need for filing the return of income belatedly if the audit report was obtained on the due date. There is no finding recorded on the contention advanced that the audit report was ready on 31st October, 1992. The date of filing of the return as the Section 271B stood was immaterial. The requirement only was that the audit report was to be prepared before the relevant date which in the instant case was 31st October, 1992. 2. The petitioner herein aggrieved preferred a Revision application. The learned Revisional Authority recorded that the assessee is a habitual defaulter in late filing of the returns along with audit report and noted that earlier also penalty was imposed. There is again no finding recorded that the audit report was not ready as on 31st October, 1992. 3. In our opinion considering the language as then stood the requirement was that the audit report had to be ready on or before 31st October, 1992 which had been complied with. There was only a failure to file the return on time along with the audit report dated 31st October, 1992. It was annexed to the return of income which was filed on 10th January, 1994. 4. Considering the above, in our opinion the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction and consequently petition will have to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)