9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n December 15, 1956, and March 15, 1957. This notice along with the notice of demand under section 29 of the Act were served on both the partners on November 22, 1956. None of the assessees, however, paid any tax but exercised option under section 18A(2) of filing an estimate. According to them, their share of income earned by them fell below ₹ 6,700 and, therefore, no tax in advance was payable by them. Both the partners accordingly filed estimates raising the aforesaid contentions on December 5, 1957, whereunder they declared the tax payable by them as nil . In due course both the partners filed regular returns - Abdul Kassam filed return of his share of income on September 11, 1957, while Abdul Halim field it on August 5, 1957, - whereunder each one of them declared their income as amounting to ₹ 20,568. The Income Tax Officer finding that tax was payable by both these partners on their income and finding that they had filed an estimate as tax payable nil , issued a notice under sub-section (3) of section 28 calling upon them to show cause why no penalty should be imposed on them. Both the partners showed cause. Two contentions were raised by both these partners be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection for the issue of the notice of demand in question prior to it. Hence the issue of the notice of demand under section 29 in this case was not in pursuance of the order under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18A. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the department filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. These appeals were accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has restored those of the Income Tax Officer. In their application under sub-section (1) of section 66 both these partners prayed that questions on both these points should be referred to this court. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the prayer of the assessee to refer the question as to whether there was any material to show that the assessee had filed an estimate of income, which he knew or had reason to believe it to be untrue. According to the Tribunal its finding on that aspect of the case was a finding of fact. The Tribunal, however, has referred the following two questions arising out of the contentions raised by the partners as regards the validity of the orders made under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in one installment on the specified date, or in equal installments on the specifies dates if more than one, falling after the date of the amended order, the tax computed on the revised basis as reduced by the amount, if any, paid in accordance with the original order; but if the amount already paid exceeds the tax determined on the revised basis, the excess shall be refunded. (b) If the notice of demand issued under section 29 in pursuance of the order under clause (a) of this sub-section is served after any of the dates on which the installments specified therein are payable, the tax shall be payable in equal installments on each of such of those dates as fall after the date of the service of the notice of demand, or in one sum on the 15th day of March if the notice is served after the 15th day of December. 3. Mr. Trivedi appearing for the assessee contended that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18A directs the Income Tax Officer to make an order requiring the assessee to pay advance tax in four installments mentioned therein. It, therefore, necessarily follows that it is not open to the Income Tax Officer to make an order calling upon the assessee to pay tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates as mentioned in clause (a). These being the contents of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18A, it is difficult to accept the argument of Mr. Trivedi that the order under this clause must be made after the 1st of April and not later than the 15th day of June. As already state, the power to make an order under this clause arises only when there is a completed assessment in respect of income of any earlier years, which exceeds a certain limit. Having regard to the procedure adopted in the case of assessment, it cannot be conceived that in every case, where there is a liability on the part of the assessee to pay tax in advance, there would be a completed order of assessment in respect of any earlier year between the two dates, 1st of April and the 15th of June. These being the circumstances under which The Income Tax Officer may, on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year, by order in writing, require an assessee to pay quarterly to the credit of the Central Government on the 15th day of June, 15th day of September, 15th day of December and 15th day of March in that year, respectively, an amount equal to one-quarter of the Income Tax and super-tax payable on so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd are part of the same transaction. Mr. Joshi appearing for the revenue stated before us that the forms printed in accordance with rule 20(a) show that on one side of the paper there is a form of the notice of demand and on the other side of the paper is that of an order made under section 18A, and this paper is served on an assessee under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 18A. Mr. Trivedi has not refuted this position. Now, these rules, by virtue of sub-section (5) of section 59, have effect as if enacted in the Act. It follows that the legislature clearly contemplated cases where the assessee will have to pay tax in advance in installments lesser in number than four. There might even be cases where the advance payment of tax would have to be made by an assessee in one installment, i.e., where the notice of demand has been served on an assessee after the 15th day of December. 8. The other argument advanced by Mr. Trivedi is that once an order is made under section 18A(1) the assessee knows about his jeopardy that he will have to pay tax in advance; once the assessee knows his jeopardy before the 15th of June, then it is immaterial when actually notice of demand is serve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
