9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay in months Amount of penalty levied 735 Ku. Shruti 1980-81 31 months 1,290 736 Ku. Shalini 1980-81 31 months 1,373 737 Anurag 1979-80 31 months 2,604 739 Anurag 1980-81 31 months 6,094 740 Anurag 1981-82 19 months 4,332 741 Anurag 1982-83 7 months 1,973 796 Smt. Pritama 1980-81 31 months 5,702 797 Smt. Pritama 1981-82 19 months 3,507 790 Shri Ramesh 1980-81 31 months 13,176 793 Shri Ramesh 1981-82 19 months 6,209 795 Shri Ramesh 1982-83 7 months 1,311 798 Smt. Kamini 1980-81 31 months 4,808 799 Smt. Kamini 1981-82 19 months 2,465 2. The ITO also levied penalty of Rs. 2,000 on Anurag under s. 273(1)(b) for the asst. yr. 1979-80 for not furnishing statement of advance tax (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asst. yr. 1979-80 show that there was appearance of Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees and Shri Satish Malik was agreeable to the levy of the penalties. Such representation by Shri Satish Malik for and on behalf of the assessees was never authorised by the assessees. Alternatively, Shri Satish Malik had hardly any time to seek instruction from the assessees and to gather facts and to prepare the cases for defending the assessees. Thus, the assessees were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (iv) The notices to the minors, Anurag, Ku. Shruti and Ku. Shalini were issued in their names instead of their guardian, Shri Ramesh Malik. The minor were legally incompetent to acknowledge the receipt of the notices and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices on the assessees, Anurag, Ku. Shalini, Smt. Pritama and Shri Ramesh Malik was, therefore, not good. Alternatively, it is crystal clear that the assessees were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The notices were served upon Shri Satish Malik on 11th March, 1986 and the penalty cases were taken on the same day. It cannot be expected that one would be in a position to make effective representation in such a situation. It was a mere formality of service of show-cause notices on the assessee; but in effect the assessee could not get reasonable opportunity of being heard. This observation is equally applicable to the case of Smt. Kamini Malik, wife of Shri Satish Malik. In this view of the matter, penalties levied on the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntation of a minor through a guardian has to be borne in mind. Even in the case of direct assessment of levy of penalty on minor, a minor has to be represented by a guardian. The purpose of representation of a minor by a guardian is that a minor is deemed incapable of defending in himself and, therefore, it is necessary that his interest in the litigation should be watched by an adult person. The guardian so representing the minor does not become party to the litigation; he does not become the assessee; and the liability for the tax and the penalty is of the estate of the minor where the minor has been directly assessed or penalised. In this view of the matter, the levy of penalty on minor without he being represented by a guardian, is a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
