9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able Market), Chandigarh. The firm, through Vasdev Sahni, petitioner No. 2, filed its income-tax return on July 30, 1979, for the year 1979-80 declaring an income of Rs. 1,35,040. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Asst.), Chandigarh, on February 26, 1982, framed the assessment in terms of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on an income of Rs. 1,50,000 giving a finding that credits of Rs. 10,000 on November 11, 1978, Rs. 8,000 on January 20, 1979, and Rs. 10,000 on March 15, 1979, through encashment of self-cheques were, in fact, undisclosed income. The decision aforesaid was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on July 19, 1983, and by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) on May 14, 1985. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as incredible. The Department has consistently taken the view that since the cheques were got encashed from the bank on November 13, 1978, January 22, 1979, and March 16, 1979, the credit entries through encashment of self-cheques made on November 11, 1978, January 20, 1979, and March 15, 1979, in the account books of petitioner No. 1 disclosed unaccounted income. I have heard Shri R. K. Chhibbar, advocate for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Bhan, senior advocate, with Mr. A. K. Mittal, advocate, for the respondent, and have carefully gone through the relevant record. Much capital has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners of the finding by the income-tax authorities that the sister concern of the petitioners working under the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard and the authorities cited do not support it. It was next argued that Vijay Kumar Sahni, petitioner No. 3, was minor during the relevant period on July 30, 1979, and, therefore, could enjoy only the benefits of partnership business but could not be held liable for its wrong doings. Observations made in Parmeet Singh Sawney v. Dinesh Verma [1988] 169 ITR 5 (Delhi), support this contention. Complaint, annexure P-4, cannot, therefore, proceed against Vijay Kumar Sahni. The complaint as also the summoning order have, both, therefore, to be quashed qua him. Lastly, it was argued with reference to the observations made in Basal Tool Co. v. ITO [1987] 167 ITR 24 (P H) and Jasb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
