9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 10th Sept., 1971 admitting an income of Rs. 1,00,853. The assessment was completed on 10th Nov., 1971 on a total income of Rs. 1,05,400 on which tax payable was Rs. 60,105. the ITO initiated penalty action for the assessee's failure to file an estimate of the advance tax under s. 212(3A) of the IT Act on or before the date of the last instalment, that is before 15th Dec., 1970. Since there was no response from the assessee to the notice issued by him, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 769 under s. 273(c) of the Act. 3. On appeal before the AAC it was argued that the main source of income of the assessee was share income from a registered firm of Mohan & Co., Bangalore, that share income was not available to the assessee before the end of March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Raghavan vehemently contended that the AAC erred in cancelling the penalty. He pointed out that the AAC failed to see that the share income from Mohan & Co., was increasing from year after year from Rs. 20,725 in the asst. yr. 1968-69 to Rs. 44,161 in the asst. yr. 1970-71 and therefore, the assessee could have filed an estimate by reference to the books of the firm. He pointed out that the non-receipt of the share income from Mohan & Co., before 31st March, 1971 would not constitute reasonable cause, since the assessee could have ascertained his share income by reference to firm's books and complied with the terms of s. 212(3A) 5. On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income would not register a steep increase compared to the earlier completed assessment year. This point that falls for consideration is whether on these facts the levy of penalty is obligatory. Under s. 273(c) of the Act penalty is exigible only if it is established that the assessee failed to furnish an estimate of advance tax payable by him in accordance with s. 212(3A) without reasonable causes. As pointed out earlier the assessee had submitted that circumstances under which he failed to furnish the estimate of advance tax under s. 212(3A). As against the above explanation offered by the assessee there is no material on record to show that the assessee deliberately failed to comply with the above statutory requirement. It is now well s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
