9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he asst. yr. 1972-73. The ITO found that the assessee did not comply with the provisions contained in s. 212 (3). He observed that "the assessment in this case was completed on a total income of Rs. 3,38,741 as against the declared income of Rs. 3,34,005. The assessee did not comply with the provisions of s. 212(2) of the IT Act, wherein he was required to make the payment as advance-tax. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of the previous year. The provision of s. 212 clearly lays down that it is not only the estimate that is required to be filed, but the payment of tax as per estimate is to be made by 15th Sept., 15th Dec and 15th March,. The ITO, while levying the penalty, gave credit for the two instalments of advance-tax even though they were belatedly paid. He has rightly not allowed deduction for the advanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mate was not paid by the due dates". 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITO has not specified the default for which liability was created on the assessee under s. 273. S. 273 has three cls (a), (b) and (c) which provide for the levy of penalty in different situations. Cl. (a) provided for liability penalty of the assessee who furnished an estimate which he knew or had rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, cl. (c) will also have no application on him. Hearing the representative, the learned counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the submissions have much force and we agree with him. The ITO has not clarified the default for which he has proceeded to penalise the assessee. We, therefore, vacate the order of the ITO and also the order of the AAC who upheld the penalty. 4. In the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
