TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in imposing a penalty under s. 273(b) of the IT Act. The second ground is that although the assessment was made in the status of HUF but in fact the assessee was the same. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee was previously assessed in the status of an individual. The ITO issued an Advance Tax Notice demanding Rs. 784 as advance tax. The assessee made the payment accordingly. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course with the notice issued by the ITO. The ld. AAC, however, did not agree with the assessee and confirmed the levy of the penalty in principle but reduced the same to Rs. 1,500. 4. Thereafter, the assessee filed the appeal before the IT Appl. Tribunal. The assessee's representative contended that since the assessee was an old assessee, there was no question of imposition of penalty under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have found that the assessee was assessed as an individual upto the asst. yr. 1967-68. In the asst. yr. 1968-69, the assessee filed declaration that the assets were received on the partition of the HUF. In that case the correct statuts of the assessee should be taken as HUF. The ITO examined the position and found that the claim of the assessee was justified. He accordingly adopted the status as H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
