9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of tax on which the computation of penalty leviable against the assessee-firm under section 271 (1)(a)(i) read with section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be based was not the amount of tax assessed on it as on an unregistered firm, but the net amount of tax, if any, payable b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee gave some explanation for the delay which was that the mother of one of the partners was ill and admitted to a hospital up to October 1965. The ITO condoned the delay up to October 31, 1965, and levied penalty of Rs. 15,015. This amount was determined as being equal to half of the gross tax payable treating the assessee as unregistered firm in terms of s. 271(2) of the Act. The matter was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's appeal and it is from that order that the two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner. On both the questions, it would appear that the position is concluded by High Court decisions, although as far as question No. 1 is concerned, we are required to apply the decision of the Calcutta High Court. In CIT v. Priya Gopal Bishoyee [1981] 127 ITR 778 (Cal), the arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the questions referred to us without further factual discussion as the position would appear to be concluded by the aforesaid two decisions. We express our respectful agreement with the Calcutta decision. Accordingly, the two questions are answered as follows: Question No. 1: In the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 : Also in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
