9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it at Rs. 3,04,500. The assessee, however, did not make the payment of advance-tax in accordance with the said estimate and by its letter dt. 11th Dec., 1975 addressed to the CIT explained its difficulties in making the payment. It was explained that it did not have liquid cash and as such was not in a position to pay advance-tax. It was further explained that it was carrying on business as contractor and according to the terms of agreement with National Dairy Development Board, Anand, the payment due to it were retained as deposits. The assessee also approached the CBDT explaining the reason why the advance-tax could not be paid. However, as soon as sufficient funds were available to the assessee it made the payment of Rs. 3,04,500 between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the assessee did not act in defiance of law so as to visit with the penal consequences. The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand, relying on the orders of the authorities below urged before us that the assessee has admitted its default in not making the payment of advance-tax in time. Therefore, a token penalty as imposed by the ITO was fully justified. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is true it is obligatory on part of the assessee to make the payment of advance-tax on due dates as specified in s. 211 of the Act. But the point at issue is whether the assessee should be visited with the penal consequences in view of the peculiar circumstances which obtain in this case. In this connection it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full payment of advance-tax between 3rd Jan., 1976 to 15th March, 1976 and it did meet with its liabilities of advance-tax though on a later date. The overall conduct of the assessee, therefore, cannot be said to contumacious nor could it be said that the assessee had acted in defiance of law or that it had purposefully avoided it legal obligation. The fact is that it was required to deposit its dues to the National Dairy Development Board and as such liquid funds were not available, to it though it had executed the work and the amount ordinarily was due. Taking overall view of the matter we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty by treating the assessee as an assessee in default. We, therefore, quash the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
