9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is passed. In fact, the same Advocate appeared for both the assessees and made one set of submissions. 2. The following particulars may be noted in the both the cases: B.M.Kanodia (HUF) Assessment year 1972-73 Interest charged under s. 217 (1A) Rs. 17,264 1-6-1971 s.210 notice on income of Rs. 29,290 tax Rs. 6,565 15-6-1971 paid first instalme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is clear from the above that in the case of B.M. Kanodia there was a second notice dt.6th Dec., 1971 under s. 210 whereas there was no such notice in the case of D.P Kanodia. We may also mention here that Mr. Agarwal for the assessee at the outset realised a contention that notice dt. 6th Dec., 71 is illegal and invalid but he gave up that line of argument as that was not raised by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deptl. Repl. in reply contended that the estimates filed by the assessees in these cases cannot be termed as estimates under s. 212 (3A) since the revised estimates filed by the assessees do not show that the tax payable by them is more by 33-1/3 per cent than the tax demanded by the ITO. Consequently, the ld. Deptl. Rep. Pointed out that s. 217 (1A) interest is chargeable. He pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, of s. 212 (3A). It is also possible on the other hand to contend that what s. 212 (3A) enjoins is that the assessee must file the revised estimate if the difference in the advance tax is more than 33-1/3 per cent. But there is no bar for filing a revised estimate even if the difference is less. In our view, the matter is not free from difficulty. It requires some debate. Once we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
