TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 271(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" The assessee is a registered firm, deriving income from sale of woollen goods and wool-tops as also from manufacture and sale of woollen cloth. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed its return of income of Rs. 66,013. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO made substantial additions thereto, and assessed the assessee at an income of Rs. 1,63,977. The assessee went up in appeal against the assessment framed by the ITO. The AAC upheld some of the additions and kept the assessment at the level of Rs. 1,13,997. The assessee went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, but without any success. The ITO had also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered. And that view of the Tribunal is now the subject of scrutiny on the question posed. Section 271(2) of the Act is in the following terms: " (2) When the person liable to penalty is a registered firm or an unregistered firm which has been assessed under clause (b) of section 183, then, not withstanding anything contained in the other provisions of this Act, the penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be the same amount as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm. As is plain from the language of the aforequoted provision, a fiction has been introduced to treat a registered firm as an unregistered firm in that situation. A perusal of s. 280A shows that an unregistered firm is liable to make p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had to be reckoned. It seems that after the order of the Tribunal, other High Courts have taken a similar view. In Addl. CIT v. Khanchand Thakurdas [1978] 114 ITR 223, the Karnataka High Court took a similar view in conformity with the view expressed in Gujarat Automobiles' case [1976] 105 ITR 588 (Guj). The Madras High Court, too, in P. Subramanian Bros. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 508, and in CIT v. Palaniappa Transports [1980] 124 ITR 634, took the same view as taken in Gujarat Automobiles' case [4976] 105 ITR 588 (Guj). And, lastly, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. India Automobiles [1983] 143 ITR 774, took a similar view. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not cite before us any contrary decision. He had to barely shrug his shoulders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
