9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty order passed under section 271(1)(a) in the case of the partners for the reasons that partnership had already been penalised on this account?" The assessment years involved are 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee is a partner in two firms, viz., S.S. Builders and K.C. Builders, and the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated against both the firms due to the delayed filing of its returns of income and the penalties were also imposed on the two firms for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee as a partner in the firm also delayed in filing his returns of the income for the assessment years in question and the Assessing Officer imposed on the assessee penalties of varying amounts for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lure to file the estimate of the advance tax. However, both the decisions have been considered by the Delhi High Court in a detailed manner in Madan Lamba v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 849 and S. Ranganathan, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench, has considered various possibilities in the matter of levy of penalty on the partner and ultimately laid down the law as under: "It seems to us that a conclusion has to be reached in each case on a consideration of all the circumstances including the two grounds indicated above and that it would be unsafe and incorrect to enunciate any principle of general application to all situations. Confining ourselves for the time being to section 271(1)(a) we think that the imposability of penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a position to file the return. Further, there is no finding that the assessee was responsible for the delayed finalisation of the accounts of the firm nor is there a finding that he was responsible for the delay in filing the return of the firm. In these circumstances, we hold that the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal is sustainable though we are not expressing any opinion on the reasonings arrived at by the Tribunal. Since we are not going into the larger question, we reframe the question as under: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act on the assessee?" We answer the question as reframed by us in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
