1977 (6) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 50,746. The ITO noticed that upward revision under s. 212(3A) was not filed. He initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee s case was that the only source of income was share income, the firm did not close its accounts and the assessee could not ascertain the share of profit and, therefore, there was no default. The ITO rejected this claim and levied a pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 21(1) should not be levied. Where an assessee files an estimate no penalty can be levied on the ground that no estimate was made. According to the estimate the income was Rs. 53,300. Where an estimate had been filed but no tax is paid the assessee can be penalised under s. 221(1) and the provisions of s. 273(c) are not applicable. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t cover a case where the assessee having filed a valid estimate does not pay the tax. Such a contingency is not covered under this section. On analogous provisions it was held in the case of M.V.N. Nagappa Chettiar Ors. vs. ITO 34 ITR 583 that for the failure to pay advance tax in accordance with sub-s. (3) of s. 18A of the IT Act, 1922, penalty cannot be levied under sub-s. (9) of that section. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X