1975 (9) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m ' in appeal as a result of grant of registration to the assessee, there being no dispute regarding identity of the person on whom the penalty was levied, namely, group of persons claiming partnership carrying on business in the name of Messrs. Capital Talkies ? " The years of assessment relevant to the references are 1965-66 and 1966-67. Admittedly, returns for both these two years were very much belated. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings for penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and raised penalties of Rs. 23,194 and Rs. 15,611 for the respective years. The Income-tax Officer also levied penalty of Rs. 2,350 under section 273(b) of the Act for the assessment year 1966-67 as the assessee had faile....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was imposed. A firm is also an association of persons. Once the genuineness of the firm is accepted and registration is allowed, the status becomes registered firm. Merely because the status of the association of persons is accepted as registered firm, there is no alteration brought about in regard to the assessee. It relied upon the provisions of sub-section (2) and negatived the second contention. In regard to the third one, the Tribunal held that the legal position since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC), had changed and the assessee had a liability to make a return within the time allowed by law. Default in the making of a return o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing that it was a firm. The Income-tax Officer on examination was not satisfied that there was a genuine firm. The claim of the assessee was accepted in first appeal. In the circumstances of the case, the first contention does not at all impress us. Section 271(2) of the Act provides: " 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 this Act, the penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be the same amount as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm." The Tribunal, while repelling the contention of the assessee, observed " ... We agree with ....