( 1 ) THE question referred to this court for answer is as follows :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271b of the Act on the ground that there was no absolute default on the part of the assessee to get the accounts audited ?"

( 2 ) MR. Mihir Lal Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the assessee, had pointed out that though the learned Tribunal had rejected the assessee's explanation with regard to the reasonable cause for default contemplated under Section 271b in respect of furnishing the audited accounts required under Section 44ab, it is a quasi-criminal matter as was held in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali, therefore, according to him, the default does not automatically attract the mischief of penalty in view of the changed proposition of law now prevailing and accepted by the Supreme Court and various other High Courts. He relied on the decisions in CIT v. ASK Enterprises [1998] 230 ITR 48 (Bom); CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. ; Calcom Electronics ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [2001] 121 STC 600 (Delhi) ; Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT ; Rupa Ashok Hurra v.