1998 (6) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed of by this common judgment. In all these four applications, the first petitioner is the firm and other petitioners are its partners. The petitioner-firm derives income from the business of land, construction of buildings and sales/lease of buildings so constructed. The firm is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. Assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 was made for the first time, in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... income-tax authorities was that section 269SS was not applicable since the petitioners had not received loans or deposits from any parties, but had received advance consideration for sale of flats. The petitioner-firm was called upon to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed in respect of a sum of Rs. 7,76,800 in the first proceeding. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e offences. The complaints were filed after the penalty proceeding was dropped by the Deputy Commissioner. The complaint petitions are annexure-1 to each of these applications. What is significant is that in none of the complaint petitions is there any mention of the penalty proceeding which was dropped. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant---Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax---suppre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X