1986 (8) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the assessee was a partner in the firms M/s Ramchand Ghanshyam, Suratgarh and M/s Parasram Jaibhagwan, Bhiwani. Initially the shares from the two firms were taken by the ITO at Rs. 9,990 and Rs. 24,799 respectively. But later, the actual share income was found to be Rs. 11,812 and Rs. 25,953. therefore, the ITO revised the assessments under s. 155 of the IT Act and substituted the correct fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstances of the case we are not inclined to accept this contention. The original assessments in these cases were completed on 11th Dec., 1981. But now from the assessee's own argument, it would be clear the original assessments of the firm M/s Parasram Jaibhagwan, Bhiwani had already been completed because the two dates of the completion of their assessments mentioned by the assessee are 19th Oct.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the assessee on the assumption that the firm in question had not been assessed at that time. He, therefore, purported to act under s. 155. But actually this would be an order under s. 154 of the IT Act, because in the original assessment order there was an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, the assessee's share income from the firm had taken at wrong figures. Therefore, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would be a case for applicability of s. 154. The ITO may have passed the order under s. 155 under a mistaken impression. But the assessee cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own fault when he failed to disclose the exact share income which had already been communicated in case of the firm in question. This is giving premium to the assessee for his own default. It was argued on behalf of ....