1981 (10) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in appeal by the AAC. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are that the assessee was, during the accounting year, a partner in the firm of M/s. Trilokchand Doongarmal. The said firm filed its return of income on 24th Jan.,1974and thereafter the present assessee filed his individual return on 29th Jan.,1974 (as against the due date of 2nd Aug.,1971). In response to the show cause notice as to why .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing of the firm's return. The AAC nevertheless upheld the penalty with the observation that the assessee had failed to file an application for extension of time in the prescribed Form No.6. It is against this decision that the present appeal is directed. 3. Shri Balchand Agarwal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that each year being an independent unit of assessment, the ITO was not j .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent with the various submissions that have been made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. On the above facts, which have not been controverted, the assessee could not obviously have filed a correct and complete return until the determination of his share in the firm. The firm, as stated above, filed its own return on 24th Jan., 1974 and the assessee quickly followed suit on 29th Jan.,1974. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X