9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961, for the opinion of the High Court. The two questions are : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that inasmuch as the assessee did not appear before the original Income-tax Officer in response to the notice ask ing it to show cause why penalty should not be imposed, and had made no oral submissions but had only made a reply in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before a penalty order was passed by the successor Income-tax Officer, no personal hearing was given to him. The Act does not make it obligatory upon the successor-Income-tax Officer to give a personal hearing. In this case, the show-cause notice was issued on November 17, 1966. Even though a period of two years elapsed, no explanation or representation was made by the assessee, whereupon the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty should be levied under section 271(1)(a), even though the return was filed beyond the prescribed date. We do not think that this contention is sustainable in law. Merely because, sub-section (4) of section 139 enables the assessee to file his return at any time before the assessment is made, it does not mean that his liability to pay penalty under section 271(1)(a) is erased. We affirm the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with section 271(2), the tax paid by the partners in their individual assessments should be deducted. We see no room for such an argument in the context. Section 271(2) says that when the person liable to penalty is a registered firm, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of the Act, the penalty imposable under section 271, sub-section (1), shall be the same amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
