9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 972 - There need not be any deliberate attempt on the part of an assessee in refusing to comply with the requirements as prescribed under rule 12 of the Rules - Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty - The requirement in law is that the assessee should furnish the share of income of his wife as is required after July 1, 1972. Both the questions referred for our opinion are answered in favour of the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 6-1-2003 - Judge(s) : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY., N. V. RAMANA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B. SUDERSHAN REDDY J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated September 25, 1990, in I.T.A. Nos. 1359 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's wife under section 64(1) of the Act amounted to concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer accordingly initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the relevant assessment years. In response to the said notices, the assessee contended that there was no act of concealment of income and he was under the bona fide belief and impression that the share of his wife is liable to be included only in her returns. It was brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that his wife submitted her return at Vijayawada whereas he submitted his return at Machilipatnam. Both of them are represented by two different auditors. Shorn of all the details, it was specifically co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income assessable under the Act. The amounts representing the shares of the spouse and minor child in the profits of the partnership firm would be part of 'his income' for the purpose of assessment of tax and would have to be shown in the return of income filed by him." The Supreme Court, while referring to the decision in V.D.M.RM.M.RM. Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183, observed that "it was held in this case that even if there were any printed instructions in the form of the return requiring the assessee to disclose the income received by his wife and minor child from a firm of which the assessee was a partner, there was, in the absence in the return of any head under which the income of the wife or minor child could be shown, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form. The contents of the return in the form of return themselves are prescribed by rule 12 of the rules that have come into force with effect from July 1, 1972. Therefore, the form itself has a statutory basis. The contents so prescribed in the said form cannot be characterised as a formal one. The decision in P.K. Kochammu Amma's case [1980] 125 ITR 624, is the complete answer in the matter. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is an erroneous one. There need not be any deliberate attempt on the part of an assessee in refusing to comply with the requirements as prescribed under rule 12 of the Rules referred to hereinabove. Therefore, the first question referred for our opinion is answered in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
