9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als in salt-petre. The previous year for the asst. yr. 1971-72 ended on 31st March, 1971. Suraj Mal, one of the partners, died on 2nd Dec., 1970 and in his place his widown Smt. Radha Devi was taken as a partner. The assessee filed two returns-one for the period 7th April, 1970 to 2nd Dec., 1970 declaring income at Rs. 46,150 and the second for the peroid dt. 3rd. Dec., 1970 to 31st March 1971 dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n., 1971 under s. 210 was issued requiring the assessee to pay an advance-tax of Rs. 8,000. The assessee had paid only Rs. 1,842. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee pleaded that because of the death of Suraj Mal on 2nd Dec., 1970 and the illness of Shri Lila Dhar partner who subsequently expired on 26th Sept., 1971, proper attention could not be paid while making the estimate of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AAC thus partly allowed the assessee's appeal. 5. We would first point out that the penalty in this case has been levied under s. 273(a) though neither the ITO nor the AAC mentioned the sub-section of s. 273 in their orders. The reference to s. 212(3) is not quite correct because s. 212(3) deals with an estimate filed by an assessee who has not previously been assessed by way of regular asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be levied and the correct penalty leviable would have been Rs. 616 as under: Amount Payable under s. 210: Rs. 8,000 Less tax already paid: Rs. 1,842 . Rs. 6,158 10 per cent thereof: Rs. 616 It is only the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 616 which was required to be levied by the ITO. Since the penalty sustained by the AAC is more than the penalty of Rs. 616 which was leviable, no part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
