9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count number is mentioned as 25-600-PY-1249/Amb/A. The sources of income were salary Rs. 4,800, income from house property Rs.200 and share from M/s. Gaur Scientific Metal works. Such return was accepted under s. 143(1) of the Act by the ITO on 29th Feb., 1976. According to the ITO, in his order under s. 271(1)(c) passed on 12th Sep, 1979 from which the present appeal emanates, the assessee had simultaneously filed another return in the status of individual with the ITO, 'B' Ward, Roorkee, and the income declared was 1/5th share in M/s. Naresh Automobiles Workshop, Hardwar. 3. On our requisition, copies of the assessment orders of the firm M/s. Naresh Automobiles Workshop for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 have been filed and though for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a letter dt. 27th Dec., 1976 to the ITO informing him that as Sh. G. L. Sharma and other partners of the Roorkee firm were assessed by him, he was forwarding their returns filed in respect of the Roorkee firm for necessary action. In the said letter, he also mentioned that the partners had stated their investments from the Ambala firm. In the said letter, date of filing of the returns at Roorkee is mentioned as 1st Aug., 1975 and, therefore, the ITO is correct that both at Ambala and Roorkee, Girdhari Lal Sharma filed simultaneous of income. The ITO after resorting to the provisions of s. 148 of the Act brought to tax the share income from Roorkee firm amounting to Rs. 2,314. The assessee accepted the assessment. 4. In the penalty proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns and we have already noted above such dates, i.e. Ambala's firm return was filed on 28th July, 1975 and the Roorkee firm return was filed on 1st Aug., 1975. Beside the assessee's statement made before the Roorkee officer that the investment of Rs. 1,875 was brought from Ambala firm, proves his bona fide of not concealing any particulars. Otherwise, he could have avoided referring to the Ambala firm. After giving our thoughtful moments to the facts of the case, we cancel the penalty of Rs. 2,314 by holding that the assessee did commit a mistake of filing two returns and can be said to have committed a fault but even to think that the assessee's action of filing tow returns, as noted above, was prompted by even a remote thought of avoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
