9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed revised return for the period 1st July, 1985 to 31st Jan., 1987, declaring total income of Rs. 80,33,527. The assessment was finalised under s. 143(1) on 30th March, 1989, accepting the income offered by the assessee. According to the AO, in asst. yr. 1987-88, the assessee was entitled to make payment of advance tax under s. 211 of the IT Act upto 15th Dec., 1986, or upto 31st March, 1987. The assessee has made the following payments towards advance tax: . . . Rs. . 12-12-86 1987-88 8,60,800 Advance tax 14-12-87 1987-88 8,14,498 Advance tax 1-3-89 1987-88 2,36,510 Self asst. tax 12-6-87 1988-89 2,245 Advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,40,000 which was confirmed by the first appellate authority against which the assessee is in appeal before us. . The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee has filed a paper book annexing therein Form No. 29 filed by the assessee regarding estimate of advance tax for asst. yr. 1988-89. A copy of revised statement of total income was also filed along with the paper book. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the penalty has been imposed by the AO on the basis of presumption. Our attention was drawn to the finding recorded by the AO while levying penalty. It was submitted that assessee was not at all aware about the dissolution of the firm which had taken place on 31st Jan., 1987. Therefore, the finding of the AO tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the picture that emerges is as under: Assessed tax for 1987-88 assessment year 19,14,568 Actual tax paid as advance tax and given credit 16,77,537 (4) In this case, accounting year of the firm used to end on 30th June, 1986. Accordingly, for 1987-88 assessment year, the accounting year was 1st July, 1985 to 30th June, 1986. This firm was dissolved on 28th Feb., 1987. In normal course, income for the period from 1st July, 1986 to 28th Feb., 1987, would have been shown in 1988-89 assessment year and accordingly, the appellant did file such estimate for 1988-89 assessment year and had paid advance tax accordingly for 1988-89 assessment year. In fact, the total advance tax paid for the period for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the peculiar facts and the circumstances, we hope you will agree with our view that the estimate filed cannot be considered to be untrue and, therefore, penalty having been wrongly levied should be deleted." It was submitted that the first appellate authority did not consider the submission made by the assessee. On the other hand, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order on the basis of surmises and conjecture. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that in view of the amendment made in s. 273(2)(c) w.e.f. 1st Sept., 1986, there is no question of considering any reasonable cause for failure to furnish and estimate of advance tax as required un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, we find that the assessee had paid advance tax more than 75 per cent for each year with an incorrect impression that the period from 1st July, 1986 to 31st Jan., 1987, is assessable during the next assessment year. The aforesaid impression, in our opinion, cannot be termed as mala fide. It is true that as pointed out by learned Departmental Representative by way of amendment w.e.f. 10th Sept., 1986, the word "without reasonable cause" has been omitted from the provision of s. 273(2)(c). However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel on behalf of the assessee that on the same day the provision of 273B had been introduced according to which no penalty is leviable on an assessee if he proves that there was a reasonable cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
