9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the ITO under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred as the Act, in respect of assessment year 1980-81 is contested. 2. The assessee's loss return of Rs. 11,038 came to be accepted by order dated 22-11-1982. The returned loss was as per the assessee's version, on the ground, that his share of loss from the firm M/s Ravi Solvex amounted to Rs. 56,431. 3. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also that there was reasonable cause for late filing, levied the penalty of Rs. 4,390. 4. In the first appeal the assessee raised two-fold separate distinct contentions. First that the provisions of section 154/155 of the Act could not be invoked to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act and second ; that in any case the assessee entertained bona fide belief that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Act and, therefore, it made no difference if these had not been initiated in the order under section 143(1) of the Act and these came to be initiated in the order under section 154/155 of the Act when the later order has not even been contested as wrongly passed or suffering from any infirmity. 6. As far as the legal contention of Shri Kapur, D.R., is concerned, I accept the same because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. If the assessee had wrongly showed loss share while filing the return it could be a cast for penalising the assessee for concealment under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for which even proceedings were not initiated. Therefore by holding that though the proceedings were validly initiated under section 271(1)(a) of the Act in the order under section 154/155 but the facts of the case did not warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
