TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (11) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a). 2. The ITO found that no return was filed for the above asst. yr. 1969-70 and the income was assessed at Rs. 38,460 under s. 144. In response to the show cause notice, a written explanation was filed on 27th Dec., 1971, stating that return could not be submitted as the intimation of the share income from the firm was not received. The assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Sewbalakram & Co., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee from the firm accordingly. Hence this present appeal. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the AAC was not justified to reduce the period of default and consequently the quantum of the penalty. It is urged that in this case the assessee did not file return at all, claiming that intimation of his share of income was not received. It is pointed out that in the case of the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he years and as a result the filing of the return by the assessee was also adversely affected. It is, therefore, urged that there was no justification for the ITO to impose any penalty at all. 5. We have given our consideration to the various arguments an contentions of the representative of both the sides. We find in the instant period that the assessee did not file return although the firm ment....