9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2,475. Subsequently, however, the return of income was filed showing a total income of Rs. 9,287 and the assessment was made on a total income of Rs. 55,658 (as revised in appeals). The ITO was, therefore, of the opinion that since the advance tax estimate was filed on January 11, 1961, i.e., after the end of the assessee's previous year on December 31, 1960, and the estimated total income in the advance tax estimate was shown at Rs. 5,500 only, as against Rs. 9,287 according to the assessee's own return of income subsequently filed as against Rs. 55,658, which was ultimately assessed, the advance tax estimated by the assessee was what it knew or had reason to believe to be untrue. He, therefore, imposed a penalty under s. 273(a) of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e between the two estimates filed by the assessee after the close of the accounting year and the ultimate return filed by the assessee in respect of the said assessment year amounting to Rs. 5,000 approximately. But this difference was not very substantial in magnitude. But, even then on behalf of the revenue it was contended, on the authority of the decision in the case of Hind Products P. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 903 (Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Kundanlal [1980] 123 ITR 800 (P H), that the assessee must file an estimate which he bona fide believed to be true and correct. It may be so. That proposition we cannot dispute. Before the penal provision of s. 273(a) can be attracted, there must be evidence that the estimate filed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing question: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " We have very grave doubts whether on the ambit of this question, as referred to hereinbefore, and in the background of the fact that when the Tribunal had refused the question under s. 256(1) on the finding of fact and in view of the fact that there was no subsequent application under s. 256(2) of the Act, it is open to the High Court to go into this question that this finding was perverse or unreasonable, a proposition which was argued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
