K.C. Srivastava, Accountant Member - (1.) THESE appeals by the asscssce-company arc directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) upholding imposition of penalties under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1963-64. The basic facts relating to all these appeals are common and common arguments have been advanced before us in respect of all of them. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common order.
(2.) The assessee firm came into existence in 1955 with four partners, namely, Shri K.C. Agarwal, Shri J.P. Agarwal, Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal. On 13-1-1958 one more partner Shri D.N. Agarwal joined this firm but he retired on 28-8-1961. On 19-8-1969 two of the partners Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal retired and two partners constituted the firm which continued the business up to 21-5-1971 when Shri J.P. Agarwal died. On his death the firm was dissolved. Thus these are penalty orders passed on a dissolved firm. In fact the assessments on the basis of which the penalties have been imposed were also made on the dissolved firm. This firm was being assessed in Calcutta. The original assessments were framed at Calcutta on dates which are not placed before us.
(3.) AFTER the original assessments had been made the firm filed a disclosure petition on 12-11-1964 and a supplementary disclosure petition on 29-4-1968, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Ill under Section 271(4A) of the Income-tax Act. The voluntary disclosure made covered period from 1949-50 to 1963-64. Thus, a part of the period was prior to the inception of this firm. In this voluntary disclosure it had been stated by the assessee that the assessments made were not proper and adequate and out of Rs. 13,63,304 earned during this period, Rs. 8,00,000 had remained untaxed. The partners wanted to introduce the money belonging to them and, therefore, the disclosure was made. This disclosure was to be meant to be a disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme launched by the Government in 1964-65. Later on petition was made before the Commissioner in 1968 requesting the Commissioner to recommend to the Board the waiver or reduction of minimum penalty on the ground of full cooperation by the assessee. In the latter petition the assessee had tried to cover the additions made in the accounts of the partners or their relatives and also wanted adjustment of intangible additions. It was also brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the partners had made certain gifts and a request was made that they should be accepted. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, rejected the voluntary disclosure petitions on the ground that some of the additions covered in that petition had been detected by the Income- tax Department.;