9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing out of common order of the Tribunal dt. 6th April, 1989: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of s. 271(2) penalty shall be calculated treating the firm as an URF since the assessee-firm committed the default as envisaged in s. 271(1)(a)?" 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a registered firm. There was delay of 20,32,20 and 8 months in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989) 175 ITR 317 (Raj). The Tribunal following the above decision set aside the order of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the file of the ITO to determine whether taxes deducted at source exceeded the "assessed tax" and then to pass order following the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court cited in the order. 4. From the aforesaid order of the Tribunal he question set out ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rajasthan High court referred to by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to state a case and refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court. Prior to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganeshdas Sreeram a controversy was going on whether a registered firm who has paid tax in excess of "assessed tax" was liable to pay interest under s. 139(8) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss is caused to the Revenue. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been applied to the case by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act and the matter has been thoroughly discussed. In our opinion, answer to question is self-evident and obvious,. That apart, in the case before us the matter has been referred only to determine the facts and penalty might be levied if assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
