9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd June, 1976. The assessee was required to file the return of income on 1st July, 1976 but he filed the return only on 7th March, 1977. Therefore, for this delay in furnishing the return the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied on him under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. The assessee replied that he could not furnish a return because questions relating to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far greater amount by way of advance tax than was found due under reassessment following the issue of notice under s. 148. He had paid a sum of Rs. 37,744 by way of advance tax. The original assessment led to the imposition of a tax of Rs. 30,863. As a result of reassessment proceedings the tax payable was increased to Rs. 33,450. But still the amount so assessed was lower that the advance tax alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st this cancellation Revenue has come up in appeal before us and submits that to find out whether any penalty is to be levied under s. 271(1)(a) one has to determine, if any, amount of tax is payable by him and if any amount of tax is payable by him than the penalty is to be worked out equal to 2 per cent of the assessed tax for every month during which the default continued. According to the D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37,744 by way of advance tax. After the assessment under s. 148 he was found liable for an amount of Rs. 33,450 as tax. According to the explanation assessed tax means tax as reduced by the sum. If any deducted at source under Chap. XVII-B or paid in Chap. XVII-C. Looked at from this angle there is no assessed tax with reference to which penalty under s. 271(1)(a) can be worked out. We are in full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
