9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ITO granted the assessee's request. However, as the assessee failed to furnish the return even after the expiry of the extended time, the ITO made a best judgment assessment under s. 144 of et Act on 29th Jan., 1976. 3. The ITO later initiated reassessment proceedings under s. 148 of the Act on 3rd Sept., 1976. As the assessee again failed to furnish a return of income in response to the notice under s. 148 of the Act, the ITO again made a best judgment assessment under s. 144 on 24th Sept., 1977. The ITO simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(A) of et Act for the failure of the assessee to furnish a return of income under s. 139 of the Act. 4. The assessee did not send any reply to the show cause notice iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain decisions of the Appl. Tribunal, Cochin Bench where the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(A) of the Act had been cancelled in cases where partners were receiving share income only from firms whose finalisation of accounts had been delayed consequently resulting in a delay in the filing of the partners returns. 7. The AAC rejected the contention of the ld. Authorised representative on the ground that in cases relied upon by the assessee, statutory notice under s. 139 or s 148 of the Act had not been issue by the ITO. The AAC, therefore, confirmed the penalties imposed by the ITO for both the assessment years. 8. Before us, et ld. Authorised representative of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Mysore High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. We are of opinion the ratio laid down by the Mysore and Orrissa High Courts would apply to the case of the assessee as well and the fact that the assessee had other sources of income besides the share of profits from the aforesaid firm would not make any material difference to the principle laid down by the tow High Courts. It cannot be denied that where the firm does not finalise its accounts, the partners of the firm would not be able to make a correct and compete return of their in as they would not be able to correctly declare their share of profits from the firm. This difficulty is not confirmed to cases where the share of profits from a firm is the only source of the income of the ass but would be equally experienced by assessee wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of default as indicated hereunder. 13. For et asst. yr. 1974-75, the period of default shall be taken as commencing from the date of completion of et assessment in the case of the aforesaid firm for that year and by the ITO in the case of the assessee. 14. For the asst. yr. 1975-76, the ld. Authorised representative of et assessee pointed out that the show cause notice issued by et ITO for levying a penalty for this year showed that he had proposed to take actin only for the default committed by the assessee under s. 139(2) of the Act and not for the default under s. 193(1) the actg. We have examined the show cause notice issue by the ITO and this contention seems to be correct. The do. Authorised rep contended that, in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
