9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notice u/s 210 of the IT Act was served on the assessee requiring it to pay advance tax on the last assessed income of Rs. 98,770. The assessee paid the advance tax as demanded. Later on the return of income filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1976-77 disclosed an income of Rs. 1,67,070. The assessee, however, did not file an upward revised estimate of advance tax as per provisions of s. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and held that the assessee knowingly committed default of the provision of s. 212 (3A) of the IT Act. He therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,550 on the assessee vide his order dt.10th March 1980. 2A. The assessee went in appeal and before the CIT (A), reiterated the contentions which were made before the ITO. The CIT (A) did not accept the assessee s explanation and upheld the penalty u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4.6 . . 1975-76 39,73,915 . . . 1,80,191 98,770 94,000 . 4.5 . . 1976-77 42,78,347 . . . 2,83,006 1,67,070 87,770 . 6.6 . . From the above chart, the ld. Counsel pointed out that in the earlier years, the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed by the assessee and reproduced in the earlier paragraph, it is apparent that in the earlier years, the margin of profit to the assessee ranged between 4.5% and 5.08% and this was accepted by the department. Had it not been for the increase of G.P. rate to 6.6% during the year under consideration there would not have been any default at all on the part of the assessee u/s 212(3A) of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
