2014 (8) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s carried out under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the business premises of the firm M/s Jagan & Co. and also at the residential premises of its partners. Based on the said search & seizure operation, the Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 144/147 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore the Tribunal, which was dismissed and consequently, filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on a firm is in fact a tax upon the partners. Further, penalty is nothing but an additional tax and consequently, a person cannot be punished more than once in respect of the same offence. The Court held that penalty for concealment of income can not be levied once in the hands of the firm and again in the hands of its partners. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we are of view that the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X