9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax, Bhopal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, " the Act "), for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that no penalty is leviable on a registered firm under section 271(1)(a) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and contended that the tax assessed was Rs. 13,320, whereas advance tax on due date was paid which was Rs. 16,800 and, as such, no penalty was leviable. It was also contended that section 271(2) of the Act is not applicable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, confirmed the levy of penalty (annexure-B). The assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. In CIT v. Maskara Tea Estate [1981] 130 ITR 955 (Gauhati), the Gauhati High Court took the view that if the tax paid in advance is more than the tax payable, then levy of penalty is not valid. In Addl. CIT v. Murugan Timber Depot [1978] 113 ITR 99 (Mad), the High Court of Madras held that if no tax is found payable by the assessee, then there will be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
