9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing November 5, 1972). He did not pay advance tax on the share income of his minor son who was also a partner along with him in the firm of Messrs. Lakshminarayan Kamal Kishore. As he did not pay advance tax on the share income of the minor son, the ITO charged interest of Rs. 3,290 under s. 217(1A). That led to the petitioner preferring a revision before the CIT under s. 264 of the Act, challenging the levy of interest on the ground that there was no statutory obligation on his part to make an estimate of the income under s. 212(3A) so as to include the share income of his minor son. The CIT negatived his contention and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel, strenuously contended that advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orms part of the total income of the assessee. Section 212(3A) says: "In the case of an assessee who is required to pay advance tax by an order under section 210, if, by reason of the current income being likely to be greater than the income on which the advance tax payable by him under section 210 has been computed or for any other reason, the amount of advance tax computed in the manner laid down in section 209 on the current income (which shall be estimated by the assessee) exceeds the amount of advance tax demanded from him under section 210 by more than 33 1/3 per cent. of the latter amount, he shall, at any time before the date on which the last instalment of advance tax is due from him, send to the Income-tax Officer an estimate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had failed to include the income of his wife or minor child's share, the income-tax authorities reopened assessment proceedings. It is in that context that the learned judges referred to the form prescribed for filing the return and said that for failure or omission to disclose the share income of the minor, proceedings for reassessment cannot be initiated under s. 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act. They made it clear that s. 22(5) of the old Act only required the assessee to furnish particulars of the names and shares of the partners, but did not impose any obligation to mention or set out the income of the nature mentioned in s. 16(3), which corresponds to the present s. 64. Therefore, that decision can have no application to the question involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
