9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs. Its accounting year ended on30th June, 1984. Penalty proceeding under s. 273(1)(b) of the Act was initiated. However, finally the penalty was levied under s. 273(1)(a) of the Act. 2. In reply to the show cause the assessee submitted before the AO that penalty under s. 273 was not attracted in the case as there was reasonable cause for furnishing lower estimate. The following reasons were furnished for the lower estimate: "The reason for substantial difference in the returned estimated income and assessed income was on account of the fact that assessee has earned a sum of Rs. 40.16 lakhs from non-trading activities. Amount of non-trading income pertains to commission from consign, show window and miscellaneous activities carried on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the estimate/statement of advance tax for the subsequent assessment year as no assessment pertaining to asst. yr. 1984-85 was completed till that time and the actual incomes from different branches were not received by the assessee upto the time of filing of the estimate. For asst. yrs. 1983-84 & 1982-83 the assessments were not completed before filing of the statement/estimate of advance tax for asst. yr. 1985-86. As the assessee had not received the exact income from different branches, there was no other basis available with the assessee for filing of the statement/estimate of advance tax. So, no deliberate motive can be attributed to the assessee for filing of an estimate though there was enormous difference between the income shown i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was known and was within the knowledge of the assessee. Penalty cannot be levied merely on general grounds without bringing specific material and mentioning specific reasons for rejecting the explanation. We are of the view that the Revenue has failed to make out a case of deliberate default or filing of an untrue estimate knowingly by the assessee. Penalty under s. 273(1)(a) can be imposed only where the assessee had furnished under cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 209A(a), a statement of the advance tax payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue. Here in the present case Revenue has failed to make out a case that the assessee knew or had reason to believe at the time of filing of an estimate that the estimate was unt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On going through the submissions made before me, I find that the assessee's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in case of Mahadeswara Moves vs. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 127 (Kar). The amount of dividend income was reflected in the P&L a/c but due to oversight the same was not reflected in P&L Appropriation a/c. In the statement of income filed by the assessee alongwith the return, the assessee started from net profit as per P&L Appropriation a/c and added all the components of income, but only dividend income could not be added. This cannot be taken as wilful deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee because the AO has not brought any material to the penalty order to show that the assessee had acted with a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
