9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming the penalty of Rs. 9,200 levied by the ITO under s. 140A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in wines. Return showing an income of Rs. 3,02,410 was filed on9th July, 1975. The assessee had deposited advance tax to the tune of Rs. 21,950. It was thus liable to pay balance tax of Rs. 1,84,444 within 30 days of the filing of the return. Since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory period of 30 days from the date of filing of the same. For the reasons mentioned in the order dt.28th Aug., 1975, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,200, which action of his was confirmed by the AAC in appeal. 2. The assessee's Representative has submitted that the tax under s. 140A had been paid on the dates mentioned below: 5-9-1975 U/s 140A 25,000 11-9-1975 " 40,000 4-10-1975 " 25,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has also filed a statement showing the deposits and withdrawals and the position of over-draft in the Bank of Madura Ltd. from7th July, 1975to31st Dec., 1975and also in other Banks. It has been submitted on the basis of the same that the assessee has no intention of not depositing the amount of self-assessment tax but it was due to its genuine difficulty that the same could not be paid. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below. This will be clear from the observation of the AAC in the appellate order. It was submitted that the assessee has already an over-draft account and the assessee was meeting its requirements therefrom he could very well fulfil its liability of depositing the tax on self-assessment out of the same. It was submitted that paucity of fund could not be said to be a reasonable cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
