TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erences Nos. 29 and 30 of 1977, which involve a Common question of law. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts of Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1977 have been noticed. A penalty of Rs. 4,665 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for not filing the return in response to the notice issued under section 139(2) within the period all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion of this court: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in calculating the penalty leviable under s. 271(1)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the amount paid by the assessee under s. 141 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was to be deducted from the amount of tax determined under s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to determine the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri [1984] 148 ITR 120, and it was held that the amount paid under provisional assessment under section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (now section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961), cannot be deducted for calculating the penalty. These references thus stand concluded by the abovenoted two decisions of this court and are accordingly answered in the negative, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
