1981 (3) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g a penalty of Rs. 4,285 levied by the ITO u/s 273(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 1973-74. 2. The assessee is a parner in three firms and the demand for advance-tax u/s 210 was raised on him on the basis of the last completed assessment on income of Rs. 33,570 with the resultant tax of demand of Rs. 8,952 on 30th August 1972. However, it came to pass that the assessee returned an income o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee. In this view, he confirmed the penalty. The ld. Rep. for the assessee claimed that though the share income from three firms were offered, the share income from J. B. Estates was wrongly included inasmuch as it was rightly includible in the hands of the family and this contention has been accepted in subsequent years. It was also pointed out that the firms had extensive business. One of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of accounts in the firm's case. He claimed that the same explanation would apply equally because the anticipation of profits from unclosed books is even more difficult. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and argued that the assessee cannot plead his own default as a partner as an excuse in his individual case. 3. We have carefully considered the records as wel....