9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in M.C.C. No. 158 of 1973, decided on 12th October, 1978, referring for our answer the following question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the findings recorded by it, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in filing the return so as to justify the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ? " T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received from the firm, United Traders, and another return was filed on 30th December, 1968, showing the income from the firm, M/s. D. C. Jain Co. The ITO also while assessing the income on these returns overlooked that the same assessee cannot file two returns and that the income from the two firms received by the assessee should have been included in the same return. The income assessed as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the assessee. It, however, reduced the amount of penalty. The assessee, although a partner of the firm of tax practitioners from 1st April, 1965, has never practised on the income-tax side. The assessee also contended before the Tribunal that the two returns in respect of the same assessment year in the same capacity were filed before the same ITO and this would show that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under a mistaken belief that two returns could be filed for two different sources of income. In our opinion, having regard to this circumstance along with other circumstances, the assessee was able to rebut the presumption. The learned standing counsel has submitted before us that the finding reached by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. No doubt normally such a finding is a finding of fact bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
