9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance tax of Rs. 28,710 on an income of Rs. 1,45,030. The assessee filed an estimate under s. 212(3A) on 14th March, 1975 according to which the total income was Rs. 2,50,000 and the tax payable Rs. 50,600. This amount was also paid. The assessed income was, however, Rs. 4,20,950 and the tax payable thereon Rs. 95,731. The ITO, therefore, held that the assessee had deliberately filed an inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid under s. 212 at Rs. 21,198 and levied a penalty of Rs. 5,300 which is approximately 25 per cent of the difference referred to above. The ld. CIT (Appeals) held that there was unexpected increase in commission, the assessee had estimated profit on the basis of gross profit rate of the earlier year and no mala fides could be attributed to the assessee. He accordingly cancelled the penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT (Appeals). 4. We have heard the rival submissions. No doubt, the CIT (Appeals was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the estimate of advance tax made by the assessee was bona fide. However, the ground taken by the assessee in the cross objection cannot be brushed aside as this is a legal contention and goes to the root of the matter. The wordings of s. 273(a) as it stood at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be less than ten per cent. But shall not exceed one and a half times the amount by which the tax actually paid during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year under the provisions of Chapter XVII-C falls short of— (1) seventy-five per cent. Of the assessed tax as defined in sub-s. (5) of s. 215, or (2) Where a notice under s. 210 was issued to the assessee, the amount pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
