9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was responsible for the delayed finalisation of the accounts of the firm nor is there a finding that she was responsible for the delay in filing the return of the firm. Since the assessee had no other independent income apart from the share income from the firm, the levy of penalty on the assessee was not justified. That apart, without relevant particulars of the share income from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1986-87. The assessee is a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. K.C. Builders and S.S. Builders, and the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act were initiated against both the firms due to the delayed filing of its returns of income and the penalties were also imposed on the two firms for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87. The assessee as a partner in the firm also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the question of law referred to above. Heard learned senior standing counsel Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the applicant and who, in her fairness states that the issue involved in the above question of law is answered against the Revenue by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the share income from the firm, the levy of penalty on the assessee is not justified as without relevant particulars of the share income from the firm, the assessee would not have been in a position to file the return. Further, there is no finding that the assessee was responsible for the delayed finalisation of the accounts of the firm nor is there a finding that she was responsible for the dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
