JUDGMENT : 1 This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the present appeal. There is no opposition on behalf of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for condition of delay is allowed and the LA. is accordingly disposed of. M.A.I.T. No. 109 of 2006: 2 Heard Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3 On consent of learned Counsel for the parties it is thought apposite to dispose of the appeal finally. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, the substantial question that emerges for consideration is as under: Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delayed filing of the audit account as required under Section 44AB of the Act? 4 The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the assessee, a cooperative society did not get its accounts audited as required under Section 44AB of the Act by the competent authority. Because of the aforesaid fact situation the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid imposition of penalty an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said order the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dislodged the order of the appellate authority by holding that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer. Being of this view, the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 5 Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee-appellant, submitted that though the audit report was filed belatedly but the same, per se, would not invite imposition of penalty. To bolster the submission he has commended us to the decision rendered in Biaora Constructions P. Ltd. V/s. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 112 (MP), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after referring the decisions rendered in Andhra Cements Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT; CIT V/s. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. To bolster the submission he has commended us to the decision rendered in Biaora Constructions P. Ltd. V/s. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 112 (MP), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after referring the decisions rendered in Andhra Cements Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT; CIT V/s. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and CIT V/s. S. Palaniswamy, has expressed the view that the order imposing penalty for failure to carry out the statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Division Bench further expressed the opinion that the penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether the penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Be it noted, the Bench further proceeded to hold that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Being of this view in the aforesaid case it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to record a finding whether the assessee had acted deliberately in defiance of the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest warranting imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Act. 6 The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the case at hand is to be adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid pronouncement of law. On a scrutiny of the order it is discernible from paragraph 5 that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that there was no denial by the assessee that the provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to it and there was delay in conducting the account audited. On a scrutiny of the order it is discernible from paragraph 5 that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that there was no denial by the assessee that the provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to it and there was delay in conducting the account audited. Apart from so stating the Tribunal has really not applied its mind as per the requisite parameters of law, as stated hereinbefore. 7 In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that reversal of order of the first appellate authority by the Tribunal in non-ascribing any cogent and germane reason, as imperative in law, we are compelled to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to it for reconsideration on the touchstone of the decision rendered in Biaora Constructions P. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 112 (MP). In the result the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.