9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,285 levied by the ITO, under s. 273 (c) of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 1973-74. 2. The assessee is a partner in three firms and the demand for advance tax under s. 210 was raised on him on the basis of the last completed assessment on an income of Rs. 33,570 with the resultant tax demand of Rs. 8,952 on 30th Aug., 1972. However, it came to pass that the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this view he confirmed the penalty. The ld. Rep. for the assessee's claimed that though the share income from three firms were offered the share income from J.B. Steels was wrongly included inasmuch as it was rightly includible in the hands of the family and this contention has been accepted in subsequent years. IT was also pointed out that the firms had extensive business. One of the two firms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounts in the firms case. He claimed that the same explanation would apply equally because the anticipation of profits from unclosed book is even more difficult. The ld. Deptl. Rep. Relied upon the orders of the authorities below and argued that the assessee cannot plead his own default as a partner as an excuse in his individual case. 3. We have carefully considered the records as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
