9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, notice under s. 273(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, was issued and reply was brought on record on 28th Sept., 1987, stating that the addition of Rs. 30,600 had already been deleted by the learned AAC and that, if the share income from the firm Oriental Scientific Dyers was excluded, the balance income remained at Rs. 3,554 and thus no penalty was leviable under the said sub-section. The learned ITO noted certain figures and observed that even as per the assessee's return filed after the completion of original assessment, showed an income of Rs. 51,652. It was also enquired by the learned ITO as to shy the assessee wanted his share of income from the firm to be excluded. According to the learned ITO, total income determined after the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income at Rs. 51,652 by the appellant. "As such, the appellant was clearly liable for filing of the correct estimate of advance tax. Because, it is not done the ITO is justified in levying the penalty." 4. The assessee's present appeal before us, on the ground mentioned above, is against the confirmation of penalty. The learned authorised representative Sh. H.O. Arora repeated the submissions seen to have been earlier made before the lower authorities and contended further that the return was filed showing income of Rs. 10,532 including share of profit from the firm at Rs. 7,000 and property income. According to him, the main source of the assessee's income was from the firm and the assessee's allocation at the relevant time, when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io in the case reported in CIT vs. O.N. Talwar (1980) 17 CTR (Del) 228 : (1980) 123 ITR 80 (Del). According to the learned Departmental Representative in the case of assessee's income went up, a revised estimate and return could have been filed to avoid the consequence of penalty provisions. 6. Rival submissions have been heard and considered. Income of Rs. 10,532 was returned in the circumstances which are clearly understandable. Subsequently, increased income was shown because of the increase in the firm's income on account of the action under the Amnesty Scheme. The assessee's main source of income is allocation of share from the firm. The firm is seen to have been penalised already for filing a wrong estimate of advance-tax. As is cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
