9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in the identity of persons sought to be assessed ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to impose penalties as the quantum thereof exceeded Rs. 1,000 ?" For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee filed returns in the status of a firm but the Income-tax Officer refused registration to the assessee as a firm and the assessments were made in the status of " association of persons ". The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the refusal of registration. During the pendency of that appeal, on February 11, 1972, the assessee disclosed additional income earned in the business in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Officer's jurisdiction to impose penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 up to the amount of Rs. 25,000 after April 1, 1971, has been upheld. In the present case, the relevant date for determining the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction in March 29, 1976, the date of reassessment and, therefore, it must be held following the earlier decisions in Addl. CIT v. Nand Kishore [1983] 143 ITR 182 (MP), CIT v. Fakirchand Dayaram [1983] 143 ITR 184 (MP) and CIT v. A. N. Tiwari [1980] 124 ITR 680 (MP) that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction in the present case to impose penalties in excess of Rs. 1,000. Accordingly, the above quoted second question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We now take up the aforesaid first question. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty, including the rate at which it was levied, was also not in any manner affected thereby. Sub-section (2) of section 271 of the Act equates a registered firm with an unregistered firm for the purpose of imposition of penalty under sub-section (1) of section 271. This is a further reason in support of this view in a case, like the present, where there was complete identity between the persons constituting the association of persons and the firm, which was granted registration subsequently. We find that the above view taken by us is in accord with the view taken by the Orissa High Court in Capital Talkies v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 489. R. N. Misra J., as he then was, speaking for the Division Bench, in that case also placed reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
