TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this penalty. 2. The assessee was a firm which had started functioning during the accounting year concerned. They had taken over a business by an assignment deed of 20th July, 1972. A payment of Rs. 40,000 was made for getting the premises and the stock-in-trade thereon. In order to raise money for such payment, the assessee had raised certain loans. The genuineness of these loans was doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness. Obviously, these were moneys brought in by the partners. If, at all, they were found to be bogus, it was the partners who should be answerable and not the firm. On this one ground, it is easy to sustain the order of the AAC. The penalty of Rs. 1,500 sustained by him also a loan taken on the opening day of the accounting year. The same reason should hold good for deleting the penalty which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the employees and no value was received from them. He accepted this contention and held that this could be no ground for levy of penalty. 6. It is admitted position that the assessee had purchased the running business of a tailoring shop. In the premises thus acquired, the assessee had started retail business in stationery goods, toilet requirements, exercise books, etc. Thus, the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
