COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. G SUSILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration:

(2.) THE assessment years involved are 1983-84 to 1986-87. The assessee is a partner in two firms, viz. , M/s. K. C. Builders and S. S. Builders, and the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act were initiated against both the firms due to the delayed filing of its returns of income and the penalties were also imposed on the two firms for the assessemnt years 1983-84 to 1986-87. The assessee as a partner in the firm also delayed in filing her returns of the income for the assessment years in question and the assessing officer imposed on the assessee penalties of varying amounts for the assessment years 19 83 -84 to 1986-87 for the delayed filing of returns under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act, which was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however took a different view and held that since the firms in which the assessee along with other partners were penalised for late filing of the return, the assessee or any other partner again cannot be penalised under Section 271 (1) (a) of the Act for late filing of their individual returns as it would amount to penalising the assessee again for the same offence, viz. , late filing of the returns and allowed the appeal. It is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the question of law referred to above.

(3.) HEARD the learned Senior standing counsel Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the applicant and who, in her fairness states that the issue involved in the above question of law is answered against the Revenue by this Court in the decision rendered in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. R. SRIDHAR (263 ITR 586 ). The conclusion has to be reached in each case on a consideration of all the circumstances including the two grounds viz. , penalty for concealment of income and penalty for the failure to file the estimate of the advance tax and that it would be unsafe and incorrect to enunciate any principle of general application to all situations.