9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a partner in two firms and for the assessment years in question he did not disclose his share incomes from one of the firms. The assessments were completed under s. 143 (1) but for the asst. yr. 1975-76 the ITO during the course of proceedings found that the assessee had not made the disclosure as stated above for the earlier years. He, therefore issued a notice of reopening under s. 148. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccidental and not intentional. 3. The AAC after taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State or Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) held that this was not a case of accidental slip but one of gross negligence and wilful negligence on the part of the assessee which was sufficient for imposition of penalty. 4. For the asst. yr. 1973-74 however th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same ITO. 6. The ld. Departmental Represenative on the other hand, contended that this was into a case of omission for one or two years but for five years and the assessee could not have forgotten to mention the share income from one of the firms unless it was intentional or atleast wilfully negligent and that this negligence was such that it could be termed criminal negligence. 7. Looking t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the firm was with the same ITO it can well be said that the assessee could not have hoped to cancel from the Department the fact that he was having shares income from that firm. In this connection of Orissa High Court in the case of CWT vs. Ramniklal D. Mehta (1982) 28 CTR (Ori) 69 : (1982) 136 ITR 729 (Ori) had made similar observations reported at page 732. It is true that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
