9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o income-tax in the status of "individual " for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee had not furnished an estimate of advance tax in accordance with s. 212(3) of the I.T. Act. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 273(b) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by the ITO as to why penalty be not levied, the assessee pleaded that he had not committed any default as he had paid the advance tax. The ITO, on the basis of the record, found that the advance tax had not been paid and, therefore, levied penalty. The assessee appealed before the AAC. The AAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,315 under s. 273(b) of the Act. Second appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal. Copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had been completed on March I 1, 1971 ", and as such the petitioner Was assessed prior to the last date for filing the estimate for advance tax under s. 212(3) and this fact should be taken into consideration for quashing the penalty. It was submitted that this fact was available on the ITO's record and the Tribunal should take note of that for deciding the application for rectification. Another point made in this application was that the Appellate Tribunal had not considered the alternative submission of the assessee that the penalty was excessive. This application was contested by the Department on the grounds that, firstly, the assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 (sic) was not regular assessment but only a provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposing of the miscellaneous petition on September 7, 1975 ? 2. Whether the, hon'ble Tribunal was justified in rejecting the request for bringing on record the important fact that the first assessment was completed on March 11, 1971, and as such it was a case of hitherto assessed and when this fact was already on record of the income-tax department ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in law in holding that there was no merit in the applicant's rectifying the earlier order of the Tribunal dated April 24, 1976?" The facts narrated in detail above clearly show that the point which the assessee tried to raise in his miscellaneous application under s. 254(2) of the Act for rectification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
