9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id advance tax demanded by the ITO under s. 210 of the Act. The ITO also found that the assessee s returned income was much higher than the income on which the advance tax was paid by him. The explanation of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause for non-filing of estimate as also non-payment of further advance tax due to the fact that he could not realise the implications of the new provisions inserted under s. 212(3A) and this was the first year of the application of this new provision was not acceptable to the ITO. He, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,760 under s. 273(c) of the Act. On appeal the AAC held that ignorance of law could not be an excuse and as there was no doubt about the knowledge of the assessee to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumed to know the law and pleading ignorance of any provision cannot be an excuse for any default which a person may commit. He further urged that in this case the assessee s accounts were closed on Dewali 1969 and the assessee had ample time to file a revised estimate for advance tax on the basis of his known and admitted income. 5. We have considered the rival submission s and the facts of the case. In our opinion the assessee had not consciously disregarded the obligation cast upon him under s. 212(3A) of the Act before this section came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1969 only and the assessment year under appeal being 1970-71 the assessee was not fully conversant with the technicality of the new provision within such a short time. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s grievance that an amount of refund of Rs. 7,488 was due to the assessee which could have been adjusted. 7. On appeal the AAC held that the total demand as per the income returned by the assessee was Rs. 69,660 and after deduction of refund of Rs. 4,660 the assessee was to pay Rs. 26,257 (wrongly stated by ITO as Rs. 25,257 in his order). Since the assessee had not paid that demand the AAC held that he was liable to penalty. He, therefore, confirmed the action of the ITO. 8. In further appeal before us, it was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the provision of s. 140A(3) had been held to be ultra vires of Art. 19(5) of the Constitution as held by the madras High Court in 90 ITR 116. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
