TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not have a reasonable cause for furnishing the return of income within the time allowed under section 139(1) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) is legal when a penalty under section 271(1)(a) was also levied on the firm, in which the assessee was partner, treating it as an unregistered firm and when the assessee's only share was the share in the firm ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when interest under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 139(1) was levied, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) is legal? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in addition to the imposition of penalty on the firm constituted by them, are the same. Those facts are elaborately stated by us in our order passed today in M.C.C. No. 652 of 1972 (Ramlal Ramgopal Agarwal v. CIT). We, accordingly, give herein only those further facts which are necessary for deciding the case of the two partners who are the assessees in these two references before us. The return of income for the assessment year 1963-64 was required to be filed by the partnership firm as well as by each of the two partners on or before June 30, 1963, in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 139 but the same was filed by the firm as well as by each of the two partners only on December 1, 1964. The two partners, namely, Raml ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay in filing the return of the partnership firm. The Tribunal rejected the explanation given on behalf of the two partners to explain the delay holding that the failure to furnish the return within time by the two partners was also without reasonable cause. It was then urged that the imposition of penalty on a partner of the firm for failure to furnish the return within time, when penalty had also been imposed on the partnership firm for this delay, amounted to imposition of double penalty, particularly when the partner had no other income except the share income from the partnership firm. This argument was also rejected by the Tribunal as untenable. The same argument advanced from different angles also failed before the Tribunal. Another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deciding whether the assessee's failure to furnish the return was " without reasonable cause " or not. Accordingly, this was a pure question of fact and the finding thereon cannot, therefore, be examined by this court, since, this not being a question of law, could not be referred in the present case to this court for a decision. This is our answer to questions Nos. 1 and 5. We now come to question No. 2. This point is concluded against the assessee by our decision in Amritlal Somabhai v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 833 (MP). We have held therein that penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act was imposable on the assessee who was a partner of a registered firm, on which also a separate penalty under s. 271(1)(a) had been imposed for not filing the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
