1979 (8) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....J.-This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(a) on the ground that the firm in which the assessee is a partner has already been penalised for identical default and the default committed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms and it is obvious that the assessee could not have filed his return of income unless such shares of income could be ascertained from the firms. No doubt, the assessee, as a partner of the firm, might also be partly responsible for the delay on the part of the firm in completing its accounts and filing its returns. However, for such delay, the firm itself has been subjected to penalty under sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erent if the assessee had separate source of income, apart from share income from the firm. However, as that is not the position in the case before us, we do not wish to express any opinion thereon. On the basis of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case before us, we are of the view that the imposition of the impugned penalty was not justified. We would accordingly cancel the penalty an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act the I.T. authorities have a discretion to impose or not to impose penalty. If it is found that there is only a technical or venial breach of the law or that it would be unjust to impose penalty, the authorities may exercise their discretion in favour of the assessee by not imposing penalty. The learned counsel for the Department relied upon the case of Amritlal Somabhai v. CIT [1979] 1....