1973 (8) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The statement of the case sent along with the reference is a consolidated statement pertaining to assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 an 1965-66. A common question of law arises in all these cases. The assessee, Smt. Triveni Devi, was a partner in the relevant assessment years in a partnership firm known as "M/s. Banaras Chemi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ners including the assessee and ultimately penalties of varying amounts were levied for the six assessment years in question. When the matter finally went before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the department conceded in the case of two partners that as penalty had been levied on the firm, no separate penalty could be levied in case of the partners in respect of the same income. However, 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

....accurate particulars of such income. Under section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, "person" includes a firm. Thus, penalty can be levied upon a firm. Section 271(2) provides that, " when the person liable to penalty is a registered firm or an unregistered firm which has been assessed under clause (b) of section 183, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of the Act, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. That is why a provision has been made in clause (iii) o section 86 that tax is not payable by a person who is a partner of an unregistered firm in respect of a portion of the income of the firm upon which tax is payable by the firm. This provision has been enacted to avoid double taxation of the same income in the hands of the same person. There is no such provision with regard to penalty. But ....