1. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 2-12-2004 on the following grounds :

"1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty as levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, Ward-2, Sirsa.

2. That while confirming the penalty, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in mentioning in Para 4 of the order that the appellant has no reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited under section 44AB from the Chartered Accountants.

3. That the confirmation of penalty is against the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions as made before the authorities below have not been considered properly.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before it is finally heard or disposed off."

2. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 3,08,710 in its return filed on 27-10-2001 which was accompanied by computation sheet of income, audit report of Junior Auditor, balance sheet, profit and loss account, trading account and other details connected with the accounts. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 5-11-2001 at the returned income and a refund of Rs. 15,000 was issued. The assessee society is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of fertilizers, seeds and also functioned as commission agent exclusively for its members residing in Ellenabad Block and also did procurement job of wheat and paddy at Government support price on behalf of HAFED from where commission was received. The assessee also earned interest income. In response to notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee furnished written reply to the questionnaire. The assessment proceedings were attended by the authorised representative of the assessee society. The assessee also produced books of account which were examined by the Assessing Officer. While examining the case, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee was under a legal obligation to get its account audited from a Chartered Accountant as per amended provision of section 44AB before the specified date and to furnish the report of such audit in prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant. The assessee was held to be assessee-in-default and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh as per the provision of section 271B. The penalty order was unsuccessfully carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

3. During arguments, I have heard Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ld. advocate for the assessee and Smt. Preeti Garg, ld. DR for the revenue.

4. The gist of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that assessee is a co-operative society existing since 1970 and report was signed by the auditor of the co-operative society and not by the Chartered Accountant. It was also pointed out that in order under section 143(3), no discrepancy was pointed out to the assessee and the assessee society was misguided by the lawyer for which the assessee should not suffer. It was also contended that from assessment year 2002-03, assessee started filing the audit report duly signed by Chartered Accountant voluntarily. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court pronounced in Manoj Ahuja v. IAC [1984] 150 ITR 6961 (Punj.&Har.). The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that there is a reasonable cause and a bona fide belief. On the other hand, the ld. representative for the revenue contended that as per section 44AB, the assessee was to get the signatures of the Chartered Accountant and the ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order. The signatures is a mandatory requirement. I have considered the rival submissions.

5. On perusal of record and after hearing rival contention, it is seen that in order under section 143(3), during assessment proceedings, all the required record was produced by the assessee. The books were examined and there is a specific finding that the assessee furnished complete record, purcha