9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed31st Dec., 1966, the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 4,74,348 as advance tax by the ITO under s. 210 of the Act on the basis of the last completed assessment. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed an estimate under s. 212(1) of the Act estimating his total income of Rs. 2,28,228 and paid advance tax Rs. 1,22,505 on the basis of the said estimate. Subsequently, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 40,000. 3. On appeal, the AAC repelled the appellant's contentions against the levy of penalty but reduced the amount to the minimum penalty of Rs. 12,650. The appellant is dissatisfied with this order of the AAC and has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Shri. H.G. Malik, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.M. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and minor son would be included in hands of the appellant under s. 64 of the Act. The AAC relied on the orders of the Tribunal in the appellant's case upholding this assessment. But we find that for the later asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal have accepted the appellant's case and directed the exclusion of the income of the wife and minor son from the income of the appellant. Further, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
