9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the notice dated 2-9-1974 was revised. On 6-12-1974, he was asked to pay advance tax of Rs. 37,695. On 28-12-1974, both the aforesaid appellants filed estimates of their advance tax suo moto declaring their liability to pay advance tax as follows : Rs. Shri Mahendra T. Panchal 3,608 Shri Motilal S. Mistry 39,743 The increase on the tax payable as per the aforesaid estimates was Rs. 614 in the case of Shri Mahendra T. Panchal and Rs. 2,048 in the case of Shri Motilal S. Mistry. The aforesaid difference was much less than one-third of the tax demanded of them under section 210. The aforesaid taxes as per the estimates filed by the appellants were duly paid by them in the course of financial year ending 31-3-1975 immediately preceding the assessment year 1975-76. 4 The assessees filed the returns of income for the assessment year 1975-76 in due course declaring the following total incomes and taxes thereon : Name of the appellant Income Tax payable thereon returned Rs. Rs. Shri Mahendra T. Panchal 1,08,240 59,948 Shri Motilal S. Mistry 1,47,093 89,870 Inasmuch as the incomes returned by the assessee appellants and taxes payable thereon were much higher th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not of advance tax and were not legal, and that they could not be taken note of by the revenue. The assessee could not, as such, be penalised on the ground that it had failed to file an estimate of advance tax in terms of sub-section (3A) of section 212. On merits, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessees filed estimates on the basis of the information received from the firm with regard to its current income, that there was no mala fide intention for filing untrue estimate and that the firm had already been penalised under section 273(c) and, therefore, ' no penalty be levied here for same default '. In support of the above contention, the assessees' learned counsel relied on the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Smt. Parvati Devi [1983] 141 ITR 738 (Punj. Har.), Addl. CIT v. Smt. Triveni Devi [1974] 97 ITR 390 (All.) and CIT v. Pratap Chand Maheshwari [1980] 124 ITR 653 (Punj. Har.). 7. Inasmuch as the entire controversy in the present appeals revolves round the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 212, it would be proper to take note of the said provisions at this stage. We quote the same, as far as they are relevant for our purpose, as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3A) of section 212 have to be judged in the context of the above provisions of law. The assessee's contention, as noted earlier, is that any estimate filed by the assessee wherein he estimates the advance tax payable by him on his current income on a figure higher than that demanded of him by a notice under section 210 would be one under sub-section (3A) of section 212. Contra-wise an estimate filed by him estimating advance tax payable by him on his current income at an amount less than that demanded of him under section 210 would be an estimate under sub-section (1) of section 212. The departmental contention on the other hand, as noted earlier is that the estimate under sub-section (3A) of section 212 would be valid only if the estimated advance tax exceeds the original advance tax demanded of the assessee by more than one-third of the originally demanded tax. If the difference between the estimated tax and the demanded tax is less than that, it would not be a valid estimate under section 212(3A). The above stand of the department, though in accord with the technical requirements of sub-section (3A) of section 212, should, in our opinion, nonetheless be rejected on the same re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by them estimating higher advance tax than was demanded from them under section 210 were estimates under section 212(3A) is, in our opinion, correct and we accept it. 10. The contention of the revenue, however, that an estimate in order to be one under sub-section (3A) of section 212 must be filed " at any time before the date on which the last instalment of advance tax is due from him ", is, in our opinion, correct. The categorical terms in which the Legislature has spelled out the requirement in this regard leaves no scope for equivocation on this account. Provisions of section 208(1) of the Act which state that " Advance tax shall be payable during the financial year. . . " cannot be brought to the assistance of the assessee in the present case on account of the categorical terms in which the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 212 have been couched by the Legislature, which prescribe that the estimate be filed " at any time before the date on which the last instalment of advance tax is due from him ". The estimates filed by the assessees on 28-12-1974 are beyond the aforesaid date which was 15-12-1974. They cannot, therefore, be termed to be estimates in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phrase ' payable under sections 207 to 213 ' and not ' paid in accordance with sections 207 to 213 '. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the interpretation of provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 212 read with provisions of clause (c) of section 273 and section 273 (ii) wherein the words used are " in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 212 ". No assistance can, therefore, be had from Chandrakant Damodardas's case either. 13. Sub-section (5) of section 215 of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1969, with effect from 1-4-1970 reads as follows : " In this section and sections 217 and 273, ' assessed tax ' means the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment [reduced by the amount of tax deductible in accordance with the provisions of sections 192 to 194, section 194A, section 194C, section 194D and section 195] so far as such tax relates to income subject to advance tax and so far as it is not due to variations in the rates of tax made by the Finance Act enacted for the year for which the regular assessment is made." The above provisions define ' assessed tax ' as tax determined on the basis of regular assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly of each other. Causes of action can, therefore, arise in the cases of both if the default mentioned in section 273(c) is committed by either. The assessees had sought assistance from the decision of their Lordships of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi. The facts of the said decision, however, have no similarity with those of the present case. There, it was found that the firm could not have filed the estimate of its advance tax ' due to ignorance of its own income '. This being so, the partners were also found to have reasonable cause for not estimating their respective shares of income from the said firm. In the present case, it has not been found as a fact that the firm had a reasonable cause for not filing its estimate of advance tax in terms of sub-section (3A) of section 212. On the contrary, it has been found, on the assessees' own admission, that the firm had no reasonable cause. No assistance can, therefore, he had from the ratio of the aforesaid decision to resolve the present controversy. The other decisions referred to by the assessees did not pertain to the default under section 273(c). They are, therefore, of no help to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
