TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstwhile Ruler of Alwar State. For the Assessment years upto and including 1963-64 he was assessed in the status of "Individual" even in respect of income which arose to him from ancestral properties. For the Asst. yr. 1964-65 also he filed the return in the status of Individual and was also assessed, as such, However, at the time of hearing of an appeal filed before the AAC, he raised the claim that a part of the income really belonged to the HUF of which the was the Karta and pleaded that such income, as an individual. This plea was raised before the AAC in July, 1971 the AAC restored the matter to the file of the ITO for further examination, by his order dt. 22nd July, 1971. However, the ITO rejected the claim of the assessee and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and consequently he proceeded to impose penalties amounting to Rs. 7,246, Rs. 6,802, Rs. 5,545, and Rs. 2,214 for the above four years. 4. Aggrieved by the above orders of penalty, the assessee filed appeals before the AAC and contented that the assessee had reasonable cause for his failure to file the returns of the Hindu Undivided Family in time, as he had been filing returns, in the status of individual even in respect of income belonging to the Hindu Undivided, Family in the past and it was only at the time of the appeal for the asst. yr. 1964-65 that he became aware of the correct legal position. Accordingly, until July, 1971 when he was apprised of the correct legal position at the time of the appeal for they asst. year 1964 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the revision order on 15th June, 1974, the position was far from certain and that this was the reason why the assessee did not file the returns of the HUF within the time prescribed under s. 139(1). The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, pointed out that the assessee had started agitating for separate assts. on the HUF and the individual from the asst. year 1964-65 onwards and that, at least at that point of time, it is clear that the assessee became aware that the HUF had to file separate returns of its own. In this connection, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the return for the asst. year 1970-71 was signed by the assessee on 1st Jan., 1971 and was filed on 21st Jan., 1971. Thus, even th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, we are of the view that penalties could be imposed on the assessee for the asst. years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for periods of default extending to 13 months for each of these years. The ITO will re-compute the penalty on the above basis and recover the same. The assessee is entitled to the consequential relief for these three years. The appeals for these three years are partly allowed, as above. 7. For the asst. year 1970-71 no penalty will be leviable as the assessee filed the return on 2nd Jan., 1971, immediately on becoming aware that he had to file the return in the status of 'HUF'. Thus, the penalty levied for the asst. year 1970-71 is cancelled and the assessee's appeal is allowed. 8. Coming to ITA. Nos. 3060, 3061, 3066 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
