2006 (2) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(a) in the case of the partners for the reasons that partnership had already been penalised on this account?" The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal, however, took a different view and held that since the firms in which the assessee along with other partners were penalised for late filing of the return, the assessee or any other partner again cannot be penalised under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for late filing of their individual returns as it would amount to penalising the assessee again for the same offence, viz., late filing of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nciple of general application to all situations. In the instant case, the assessee had only share income from the two firms and so far as the capital gain that was assessed in the hands of the assessee is concerned, that is also the share of the capital gain from the firm. In other words, the assessee had no other independent income apart from the share income from the firm. Therefore, we hold ....