TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt years under appeal in the firm of M/s. Basheshar Lal Beni Gopal, Sirsa. In this firm her minor sons Rajinder Kumar and Anil Kumar were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the asst. yr. 1973-74. She filed her return of income on 14th Aug., 1973. On the same date, the returns of her minor sons and the return of the firm were also filed before the same ITO i.e., the ITO, A-Ward, Sirsa. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the returns for the firm, her minor sons and for herself were filed before the ITO an above mentioned on 14th Aug., 1974. Since the accounting period of the assessee was the financial year, the returns due on or before 31st July, 1973. 3. The ITO completed the assessment for the year 1973-74 in the case of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s framed by the ITO under s. 143(3) of the Act, he made certain observations including the observation that the share income of the minors has already been clubbed in the hands of Smt. Daropadi Devi, the mother, under s. 64 of the Act. Similarly, for the asst. yr. 1974-75 the assessments in the case of the minors were framed on 17th July, 1975 i.e., the date on which the assessment of the assessee was finalised. In these assessments of the minors, the ITO observed that share of the minors from the firm of M/s. Basheshar Lal Beni parshad will be assessed in the hands of Smt. Daropdi Devi under s. 64 of the Act. 6. The assessments of the firm for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 were finalised on 5th June, 1975 and 29th Sept., 1976. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which had accrued to him under s. 41(1) of the Act. The penalties were imposed by the ITO on 16th March 1978 for both the years under appeal. 8. When the matter came in appeal before the AAC, it was submitted before him that the assessee had filed the returns of her own as well as the returns of her minor sons who were admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm in which she was a partner under the belief that these were to be filed separately, that the returns of the assessee and that of the minor sons were filed simultaneously, that the tax payable on the basis of the returned income in the case of the minors was deposited which was subsequently refunded by the ITO by making NA assessments on the minors, that leaving column No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration the provisions of instrument of partnership factum of filing of the returns by the assessee and the and her minor sons simultaneously before the same ITO would leave no doubt that there was no intention whatsoever of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof and as such penalty could not be levied. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on ratio of the following judgments for the submissions that non-inclusion or failure to mention the share of the minors in the returns of the assessee did not amount to concealment: (i) Muthiah Chettair vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 183 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Smt. Bani Duleiya (1972) 84 ITR 770 (MP); and (iii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik (1976) 103 ITR 713 (Ori). 11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plainly and manifestly a breach of the obligation imposed by s. 139(1) requiring the assessee to furnish a return of her income in the prescribed form, and in failing to do so the respondent was guilty of concealment of those amounts which attracted the applicability of s. 271(1)(c). However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in V.D. M. Rm. M. Rm. Muthiah Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 183 (SC) which was binding upon the Court, the assessee could not be said to have concealed her income by not disclosing in the return filed by her the amount representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in that case. 15. In so far as the case before us in concerned, we see that a new column in the form of return w.e.f. 1st April, ....