9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, the appeals are consolidated and a common order 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 fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 earlier. He also realised that it would involve investigation of facts before the legality and invalidity of the notice is decided upon. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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 ITO was perfectly justified in charging interest but, at any rate, the matter cannot be said to be beyond any doubt so as to bring it with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 matter is not free from argument and debate then it is completely outside the purview of s. 154. It is well settled that only glaring mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
