9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act, 1961. The facts are that both the assessees during the year under consideration were partners in the firm as minors and according to the ITO, since they did not make the payment of tax within one month of the filing of their respective returns, penalty proceedings under s. 140A(2) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the ITO both the assessees contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following observations: "The learned A.R. of the appellant contended that the appellant was the partner in the firm M/s. Ratilal Manekji having share in the profits only being the minor. The only source of the income was from the firm. The firm incurred a loss of Rs. 8,02,141 during the period relevant to asst. yr. 1972-73 which was divided amongst the major partners only. In the subsequent two y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e firm M/s. Ratilal Manekji. We have perused page 5 of the Paper book which is the balance-sheet as on Diwali, 1974 wherein closing stocks to the extent of about Rs. 22½ lakhs and the outstanding dues from the various buyers were about Rs. 15 lakhs. Thus, the entire liquid capital of the firm was blocked and that is why as soon as the firm got the payment from its buyers and the closing sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
