TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth of June, 1973, was, accordingly, paid to the extent of Rs. 68,126. On September 13, 1973, the assessee filed a revised estimate under section 212 of the Act wherein the income declared was Rs. 3,00,000 an the corresponding advance tax payable was shown as Rs. 66,378. As the assessee had already paid the first instalment of tax of Rs. 68,126 which was more than the tax payable on the basis of the revised estimate dated September 13, 1973, no further instalment was paid in September, 1973. We may, at this stage, refer to a fact mentioned before this court by learned counsel that the reason for reducing the estimate of income in the revised estimate filed on September 13, 1973, was that the assessee was trying to convert the partnershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so the payment of Rs.. 1,36,352 made through a cheque delivered to the Income-tax Officer on December 15, 1973, was disregarded. The Income-tax Officer was then confronted with the revised estimate filed on September 13, 1973, and he was of the opinion that that estimate was untrue to the knowledge of the assessee. He, accordingly, initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty under section 273(a) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 10,935. On appeal by the assessee, the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the order levying penalty. It is in these circumstances that the assessee sought for a reference under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Rules, when cheques are handed over to the Government officials or the Government officers authorised to receive payment on behalf of the Government, payment would be deemed to have been made on the date the cheque was handed over. The fact that the cheque so delivered was encashed a few days later is totally immaterial. Please see the decisions in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 789 (P H) and CIT v. Kumudam Publications (P.) Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 617 (Mad). Applying this principle, it must be held in the present case that the assessee paid the advance tax instalment of Rs. 1,36,352 on December 15, 1973, itself which was the due date because, admittedly, the cheque was delivered to the Income-tax Officer authorised to recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th day of September and the 15th day of December or the 15th day of September, 15th day of December and the 15th day of March, as provided in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 211(1) of the Act. The assessee filed revised estimate under section 212 of the Act dated December 14, which unfortunately reached the Income-tax Officer a day late on December 15. The sum of Rs. 1,36,352 was paid in accordance with the aforesaid estimate on December 15, as we have already pointed out. The Income-tax Officer seems to have come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1,36,352 paid by the assessee cannot be regarded as advance tax, firstly, because the cheque received by him was realised subsequent to December 15, and could not, therefore, be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee with the provisions of law. The amount of tax actually paid by him on December 15, 1973, should be regarded as payment of advance tax under Chapter XVII-C, and it must, accordingly, be taken into account for the purpose of quantifying the penalty, if any, leviable under section 273(1)(i) of the Act. There is no dispute in the present case that, if this sum of Rs. 1,36,352 paid on December 15, 1973, is regarded as payment of advance tax under Chapter XVII-C, then no penalty will be leviable in terms of section 273(1)(i) of the Act, although technically penalty may be leviable, if the estimate dated September 13, 1973, filed by the assessee is considered as an untrue estimate within the knowledge of the assessee. We, therefore, hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." In the present case, the revised estimate dated December 14, 1973, filed by the assessee was disregarded on the technical ground that it was filed a day late on December 15, 1973. Apparently, the delay was only in the transmission of the estimate form by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer. The assessee made a substantial tax payment of Rs. 1,36,352 on December 16, 1973. This payment was disregarded on the ground that it is not advance tax paid under Chapter XVII-C of the Act. Assuming that the Income-tax Officer is right in relying on the above technicalities, it does not automatically follow that the Officer should impose a penalty as if the assessee acted del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
