9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths Amount of penalty levied 735 Ku. Shruti 1980-81 31 months 1,290 736 Ku. Shalini 1980-81 31 months 1,373 737 Anurag 1979-80 31 months 2,604 739 Anurag 1980-81 31 months 6,094 740 Anurag 1981-82 19 months 4,332 741 Anurag 1982-83 7 months 1,973 796 Smt. Pritama 1980-81 31 months 5,702 797 Smt. Pritama 1981-82 19 months 3,507 790 Shri Ramesh 1980-81 31 months 13,176 793 Shri Ramesh 1981-82 19 months 6,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same were served upon Shri Satish Malik on 11th March, 1986 and the orders were passed on 11the March, 1986 itself i.e., to say on the same date on which the notices were served and for which date the cases were not fixed. (ii) Shri Satish Malik on whom the said notices were served, was not authorised by any of the assessees and as such there was no valid service of the notices on the assessees. (iii) the penalty orders in all cases except in two cases of Anurag relating to the asst. yr. 1979-80 show that there was appearance of Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees and Shri Satish Malik was agreeable to the levy of the penalties. Such representation by Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees was neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82) 136 ITR 672 (All). 6. Respective submissions of the parties have been minutely considered. There is no material on record to establish that Shri Satish Malik was residing jointly with Shri Ramesh Malik and, therefore, but for his wife, Smt. Kamini Malik, it cannot be said that the notices were served upon family member of the assessees. There is equally no material on record to show if Shri Satish Malik was authorised by the assessees to receive notices on their behalf. The services of notices on the assessees, Anurag, Ku. Shalini, Smt. Pritama and Shri Ramesh Malik was, therefore, not good. Alternatively, it is crystal clear that the assessees were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The notices were served upon Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llity and is not binding upon him. No doubt, as argued by the learned Departmental Representative, s. 160 of the IT Act is an enabling provision and, therefore, the ITO is not bound to assess the income in the hands of the guardian and as stated in s. 160 direct assessment on minor is permissible. Such proposition has been laid down by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in KM. Sunita Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT. However, it is patent that the distinction between the direct assessment on minor and representation of a minor through a guardian has to be borne in mind. Even in the case of direct assessment of levy of penalty on minor, a minor has to be represented by a guardian. The purpose of representation of a minor by a guardian is that a minor is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
