9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax payable in the sum of Rs. (-) 89,880 is equal to Rs. 99,120 was not paid by the assessee as such proceedings under s. 221(1) of the Act were taken and penalty imposed upon the assessee as such. The tax in the sum of Rs. 1,89,000 was payable by the assessee on the basis of an estimate of income since filed by assessee on 14th March., 1976. 3. The assessee has not given any reply to the show cause notice issued by the ITO prior to imposition of the above penalty 4. In appeal by the assessee, the AAC cancelled the penalty with the following observations: "Shri agreed that opportunity was given to the assessee. He however pointed out that due to his pre-occupation in dealing with several time barring matters he could not attend be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f but has made observations which were out of context. The ld. Deptl. representative has further contended that the grounds on which the penalty has been cancelled by the AAC of Income-tax were not sustainable in law inasmuch as, the conduct of the assessee vis-a-vis the regularity with which the assessee has been making payments in the past, as also the fact that the balance tax was paid by the assessee on 7-4-1976 were no grounds on the basis of which the penalty could have been cancelled. Concludingly, he has prayed that the impugned order of the AAC of Income-tax be set aside and that of ITO imposing penalty be restored. 5. On his part, Shri J.P. Shah, the ld. counsel for the assessee has supported the order of the AAC of Income-tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1976 and has not yet been paid. Notice in terms of proviso to s. 221(1) of the IT Act 1961, requiring the assessee to show cause, why penalty should not be imposed for non-payment of taxes of Rs. 99,120 being the outstanding demand in respect of asst. yr. 1976-77 was served on 27th March, No. explanation has been submitted/Explanation submitted has been examined and found to be unsatisfactory. As per the statement tax payable Rs. 1,89,000 paid only Rs. 89,880.Thus balance payable comes to Rs. 99,120. In these circumstances a penalty of Rs. 9,920 is hereby imposed under s. 221(1) of the Act, which should be paid within 35 days (days of the service of notice of demand under s. 156 issued separately. The previous approval of the IAC has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and found to be unsatisfactory, remain in fact that the ITO has not applied his judicious mind but has put signature on an order which was a stereo-type one mechanical. 8. Penalty has been imposed on an amount of Rs. 99,120 mentioning as being outstanding demand in respect of ass. yr. 1976-77, where as advance tax under s. 208 of the Act is payable during the financial year and has an intended purpose. The advance tax relates to a financial year but the ITO has imposed penalty mentioned the fact that the outstanding demand of Rs. 99,120 related to the asst. yr. 1976-77. Again this fact points to an irresistable inference and conclusion that the ITO has made penalty order without applying his judicious mind. In view of our discussion as ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
