9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee had been served with a notice under s. 210 requiring payment of advance tax on estimated income of Rs. 33,130 which was the income assessed. Assessee, however filed the return for this asst. yr. (1974-75) showing an income of Rs. 63,850. Noting that the assessee had not filed an estimate as required under s. 212 (3a) and on finding that the assessee s reply was not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had a share and therefore the penalty imposed should be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee as a partner must be deemed to be conscious of the income arising from the firm. 6. On the consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the penalty need not have been imposed of the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also indicates that the assessee was not conscious of the liability to file the estimate under s. 212 (3a). Secondly, that the fault of the firm is coextensive with the default of the assessee partner to the extent of the income of that firm and when the firm had suffered penalty for that default it would be unjust to inflict a penalty to the same reason on the partner. Taking these facts into ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
