9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case S.V. Ghatalia vs. 2nd ITO (1983) 37 CTR (Trib)(Bom) 68 : (1983) 4 ITD 583 (Bom). We, accordingly, reject this ground. 3. Ground No. 2 is as follows: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the IAC to delete the addition of Rs. 8,894 made under r. 6B of the IT Rules." The assessee had spent Rs. 8,894 on food hampers, mango parcels, dry fruits etc., distributed amongst business customers on account of Diwali and Christmas. The IAC (Assessment) held that these expenses were expenses on advertisement. According to him the basic purpose of giving these articles was for obtaining public favour so that a congenial market is created for assessee's products. He considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . During the relevant financial year the assessee had filed three estimates of of advance-tax as under: Date of filing the estimate Income estimated Tax payable 8-6-1981 10,30,000 5,80,662 14-9-1981 50,30,000 28,35,662 10-12-1981 71,70,000 40,42,088 The IAC (Assessment) levied interest under s. 216 of the Act on the ground that the assessee paid less advance tax in the first two instalments by under estimating its income. The CIT(A) has deleted the said levy of interest and the Revenue has now come in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the parties. The first instalment was payable on 15th June, 1981. The second instalment was payable on 15th Sept., 1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The submission on behalf of the Department was that since the assessee made the estimates on 8th June, 1981 and 11th Sept., 1981 and since in these estimates the income mentioned was far less than the income which was ultimately assessed the provisions of s. 216 would be attracted. We are unable to accept this submission. Provisions of s. 216 would be attracted only if the assessee was under legal obligation to file the estimate and in such estimate he had under-estimate the income. Since the assessee was under no legal obligation to file the estimate and he was under obligation to file a mere statement, the provisions of s. 216 would not be attracted. The estate which he had filed was in accordance with the legal requirements. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
