TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners. - - - - - Dated:- 14-8-1973 - Judge(s) : H. N. SETH., R. L. GULATI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by GULATI J.-This is it reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The statement of the case sent along with the reference is a consolidated statement pertaining to assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 an 1965-66. A common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 1961-62 15,333 1962-63 22,933 1963-64 21,150 1964-65 29,741 1965-66 22,062 Separate proceedings were taken for the imposition of penalty against the partners including the assessee and ultimately penalties of varying amounts were levied for the six assessment years in question. When the matter finally went before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the department conceded in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm as unregistered firm was illegal? " Section 271(1)(c) provides for penalty where a person has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Under section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, "person" includes a firm. Thus, penalty can be levied upon a firm. Section 271(2) provides that, " when the person liable to penalty is a registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a legal person or a juridical entity see Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax . Thus, any tax imposed upon a firm is in fact a tax upon the partners. That is why a provision has been made in clause (iii) o section 86 that tax is not payable by a person who is a partner of an unregistered firm in respect of a portion of the income of the firm upon which tax is payable by the firm. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... punished more than once in respect of the same offence. As already pointed out above, penalty levied upon an unregistered firm is in fact a penalty imposed upon the partners so that the imposition of penalty in respect of the same income in the hands of the partners would amount to double punishment. No provision has been brought to our notice under which such a course can be adopted. For the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
