9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dual and the reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee was served with the notice of demand under s. 210 read with s. 156 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on 22nd November, 1971, requiring the assessee to pay by way of advance tax Rs. 64,549. The first, instalment came to Rs. 32,275 which became due on or before, 15th December 1971, and was paid by the assessee. The ITO therefore, imposed a penalty under s. 221 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by an order dated 5th February, 1973, amounting to Rs. 3,200. It appears to us, however, that the assessee had filed an advance, tax estimate on 3rd February 1972, according to which the total advance tax payable Was Rs. 18,505, payable on or before 15th March, 1972, which was paid in two instalmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the advance tax estimate on 3-2-1972 as mentioned by the AAC in his order and not controverted before us by the learned departmental representative, Sri Thiagrajan. This means that the demand originally made: by the ITO under section 210 did not exist and was replaced b the estimate filed by the assessee on 3-2-1972. According to this estimate what the assessee was to pay by way of advance tax was Rs. 18,505 in the instalment which fell due after the date of the filing of the estimate. In other words, the amount of, Rs. 18,505 was due for payment on or before l5-3-1972. It is again not under dispute that out of this amount Rs. 9,000 was paid on 1-3-1972. Thus, on the date fixed for payment of the advance tax, i.e, 15-3-1972, the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid, accordingly, that instalment by 15th March, 1972, in the entirety of the sum according to the estimate, viz., Rs. 18,505. But what he actually did was that he paid a sum of Rs. 9,000 on the 1st March, 1972, before the date of the last instalment and paid the balance after 15th March, 1972, i.e., before the expiry of the end of March. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the AAC, whereby he directed the ITO to reduce the penalty keeping in view that the advance tax in default was only Rs. 9,505. If the order for imposition of penalty had been passed before the estimate had been filed, other considerations might have applied. Our attention was drawn to the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
