9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the appellant's contention that he was under the Bona fide impression that since the property was being utilised as a business premises carrying on the business in textiles under the name and style of M/s. Mahalakshmi Stores, by the partnership firm of M/s. Karuppiah Nadar Co., in which he was a partner, that he need not admit any rental income in his individual returns. It was the plea of the appellant that this rent payment for the house was actually shown in the accounts of the firm and allowed as a deduction and that as soon as the appellant came to know of his mistake he filed revised returns immediately admitting the retail income from the said house property from 1969-70 onwards. He did not accept the appellant's plea that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... know of this mistake on his part, he immediately hastened to file revised returns and that there was no intention to suppress the income from this house property on the part of the appellant. The ld. counsel submitted that it was a case of an inadvertent omission on the part of the appellant under a bona fide impression about his liability in respect of this income from property and that, therefore, there was no mens rea which was an essential ingredient for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel in this connection referred us to the fact that the appellant's advocate Sri K.V. Rajagopalan had filed a letter on 6th Jan., 1977 before the 10th ITO. City Cir. IV, Madras, in which this omission was brought to the notice of the ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se five years, the appellant was a partner in M/s. M. Karuppiah Nadar Co. and that the said partnership was running a textile shop under the name and style 'Mahalakshmi Stores" in the front portion of this building at 492 T.K. Road, Tondiarpet, Madras-21. There is also no dispute that this property itself belongs equally to the appellant and his brother M.K. Shanmugha Kani, and that they were living in the said house. It appears that in October, 1973 when the firm of M. Karuppiah Nadar Co. was dissolved the appellant took over the cloth shop of Mahalakshmi Stores and started a new partnership firm along with his adult son to run the cloth shop. It is seen that this firm of Mahalakshmi stores filed its income-tax returns for the asst. yr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order from 1969-70. If returns are to be filed please send the necessary return form. Kindly do not take any penalty action. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- K.V. Rajagopalan It is only after this letter can filed by the assessee s counsel that the ITO issued notices under s. 148 of the Act for all the five years on 5th Feb., 1977, in response to which the appellant filed revised returns on 31st July, 1977, including his share of property income amounting to Rs. 804 in each of these years. The appellant has also pleased before us a copy of the covering letter dt. 30th July, 1977 to the revised returns filed in response to the notices under s. 148 of the Act. 7. It is clear from the above facts that this was an inadvertent omis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
