9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60 and 1963-64. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1963-64, the ITO rejected the book results and estimated the income at Rs. 5,00,000 as against Rs. 1,27,540 returned by the assessee. On appeal, the AAC set aside that assessment with a direction to the ITO to re-do it. Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition on July 24, 1969, under. s. 271(4A) agreeing to an addition of Rs. 50,000 for the assessment year 1959-60 and Rs. 71,000 for the assessment year 1963-64. It was, however, found that the capital account as on April 1, 1963, showed an excess of assets over liabilities at Rs. 5,05,624 whereas if the books were correctly maintained the excess should have been only Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee applied for and obtained a reference of the following questions for the opinion of this court, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as " the Act " :-- " (1) Whether the penalty proceedings are validly initiated and concluded when the assessee firm was dissolved on July 14, 1971, and in the absence of individual notice to all the partners of the erstwhile firm ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 55,000 for the assessment year 1959-60 and Rs. 90,000 for the assessment year 1963-64 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in inferring without materials that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd every individual partner of the dissolved firm in the present case. As s. 283(2) of the Act does not restrict itself either to assessment or to penalty and is wide enough in its amplitude to cover all the proceedings under the Act, the service of notice with reference to penalty proceedings on one of the partners of the dissolved firm was enough compliance with the provisions of the Act. The first question will, therefore, have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. As far as the second question is concerned, the learned counsel for the assesee drew our attention to a letter dated 26th February, 1970, and the said letter runs as follows : " In connection with our above application (referring to petition under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow, coming to the third point, namely, whether the Tribunal was justified in inferring on the materials that the assessee firm was guilty of concealment, we have already extracted the letter dated 26th February, 1970, in which the assessee had agreed to the levy of penalty. In those circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in this contention also, because when once the leviability of penalty is agreed to, it follows that the assessee agreed that there was concealment attracting the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This question also has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. All the questions are answered in the manner indicated above. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee is Rs. 500 (Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
