9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court was delivered by Rajesh Bindal J.— Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal"), arising out of its order dated April 29, 1988, passed in I. T. A. Nos. 632 and 633 of 1985, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the estimate filed by the assessee on March 15, 1978, of the total income and the advance tax payable could not be taken cognizance of and as such was not in accordance with the result penalty under section 273(2)(c) was leviable upon the assessee ? 2. The facts, as recorded in the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayable on March 15, 1978, by virtue of section 212(3A). Upward estimate of the current income and the advance tax payable thereon by the assessee is required to be filed before the last date, i.e., March 14, 1978, as per the Income-tax Officer. The assessee filed the estimates of current income and advance tax as required under section 212(3A) of the Act on March 15, 1978. The Income-tax Officer held that the estimates having been filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act were invalid and, therefore, these were no estimates in the eyes of law. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(2)(c) of the Act which provides that if the Income-tax Officer in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance tax was dependent upon the intimation by the said firm. Still further he submitted that the assessee was not to gain anything by filing the estimate by delay of one day only rather than error was committed as the period was considered as on or before 15th of the month instead of before 15th of the month. In such a situation, the estimate of advance tax filed by the assessee could not be declared to be invalid. Once a reasonable explanation is available and levy of penalty during the relevant period was envisaged in the absence of reasonable explanation, in our view, there was no justification for levy of penalty for mere technical default when the delay was merely of a day. 5. The question referred, thus, is answered in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
