1981 (2) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1)(c) to Rs. 15,000. In the cross objection, the assessee objects to the retention of this penalty. 2. The assessee was a firm which had started functioning during the accounting year concerned. They had taken over a business by an assignment deed of 20th July, 1972. A payment of Rs. 40,000 was made for getting the premises and the stock-in-trade thereon. In order to raise money for such paymen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It is impossible that a firm would earn this income on the very first day of its business. Obviously, these were moneys brought in by the partners. If, at all, they were found to be bogus, it was the partners who should be answerable and not the firm. On this one ground, it is easy to sustain the order of the AAC. The penalty of Rs. 1,500 sustained by him also a loan taken on the opening day of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that a penalty has been levied. 5. The AAC was told that the stock was consumed by the employees and no value was received from them. He accepted this contention and held that this could be no ground for levy of penalty. 6. It is admitted position that the assessee had purchased the running business of a tailoring shop. In the premises thus acquired, the assessee had started retail business....