9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer were confirmed by the Tribunal and the advance tax paid by the assessee was less than 75 per cent, of the assessed tax?" The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year ended on March 31, 1980. The assessee-company had filed an estimate of advance tax showing an income of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) and estimated the advance tax payable at Rs. 1,18,150 (rupees one lakh eighteen thousand one hundred fifty only). In the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, the Income-tax Officer computed the total income at Rs. 3,43,360 (rupees three lakhs forty-three thousand three hundred sixty only) on September 23, 1988. The Income-tax Officer also directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed income exceeded the statutory percentage, which is the permissible difference, the Assessing Officer was under a mandate to levy interest. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhatt, the Tribunal was in error in deleting the interest levied under section 215 of the Act. Under section 211 of the Act, the Legislature has provided dates during the financial year on which advance tax becomes payable in equal instalments. Under section 209A of the Act computation and payment of advance tax by an assessee are provided for. However, actual computation of advance tax, viz., the basis on which an assessee is required to estimate the advance tax payable by him, is laid down in section 209 of the Act. In each financial year, once an assessee finds tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atory in nature, nothing further is required to be seen. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the assessee was valuing the closing stock on the same basis in the past and for this year also, the same method had been adopted. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that an addition of this nature and of this magnitude could not have been anticipated by the assessee at the time when it filed its estimate of advance tax payable by it. Nothing has been brought on record to rebut the aforesaid finding of fact, viz., the method of valuation of closing stock being identical in past years. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state in the light of the scheme of computation of payment of advance tax that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
