IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.22816-CII of 2008 in/and I.T.A. No.723 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant Vs. Sh. Mahipal Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. ----- ORDER: Delay condoned. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 18.7.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.1741/Del/2006 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.25,577/- levied by the AO on the assessee u/s 271B although the assessee had clearly violated the provisions of section 44AB by not getting his accounts of all the businesses audited by the accountant and furnishing the report of such audit within the time specified and the audit report of only a I.T.A. No.723 of 2008 part of the business filed by the assessee could not be considered as report u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act because the concept of the turnover is concerning an assessee (person) and not a concern or a particular business? 2. Whether, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee’s view of not getting the accounts audited of M/s Raj Engg. Works was reasonable though gross receipts from both the proprietorship concerns exceeds Rs.40 Lacs?” The assessee filed his return as proprietor of two concerns but audit report was filed in respect of one concern. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271B of the Act, which was affirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, set aside the penalty, accepting the bonafides of the assessee. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that non-filing of audit report was for bonafide reasons being pure finding of fact, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 22, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2