1980 (12) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y are consolidated.  The charge against the assessee is that the assessee has not disclosed his share of property income. The facts are as follows. 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm by name Chowdhury Brother. While examining the accounts of the partnership firm for the asst. yr. 1975-76, the ITO noticed that there was an investment by the partners in house property at 105/646A. Fahima....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se of discussion for the asst. yr. 1975-76 in the case of the partnership firm the purchase of the property and the details thereof were furnished to the ITO and this would show that there was no intention to conceal the notional income from the Department. 3. The ITO, however, did not accept the assessee's explanation and imposed penalty of Rs. 788 for each of the years under appeal under s. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the assessee stated. (D) Secondly, the assessee on 21st October, 1976 wrote to the ITO that the investment in the house property was brought to the notice of the ITO during the assessment proceedings of the firm in which the assessee is a partner. This letter, of course, was written after the ITO noticed that the notional income from the property was not disclosed. The ITO himself was able t....