TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is there a finding that he was responsible for the delay in filing the return of the firm. - We answer the question as reframed by us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 26-11-2002 - Judge(s) : N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN., K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J.-In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as lithe Act"): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, and Mr. C.V. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. Mr. C.V. Rajan, learned counsel for the assessee, in his fairness brought to the attention of this court the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Smt. Triveni Devi [1974] 97 ITR 390 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Pratap Chand Maheshwari [1980] 124 ITR 653, where both the courts have taken a view that penalty cannot be levied once in the hands of the firm and again in the hands of a partner. It is relevant to mention here that the decision of the Allahabad High Court dealt with the case of penalty for concealment of income and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with the case of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn apart from that urged in the case of the firm." However, in our view, it is not necessary to go into the larger question, as we find from the orders of assessment for all the three assessment years in question, the assessee had only share income from the two firms and so far as the capital gain that was assessed in the hands of the assessee is concerned, that is also the share of the capital gain from the firm. In other words, the assessee had no other independent income apart from the share income from the firm. Therefore, we hold that since he had no income other than the share income from the firm, the levy of penalty on the assessee is not justified as without relevant particulars of the share income from the firm, the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
