1981 (10) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ). The assessee is a private limited company which came into existence during the year under consideration and it was obliged to file an estimate of its income u/s 212(3) for advance tax purposes. Within the stipulated time, the assessee did not file the said estimate as contemplated by s. 212(3), but filed an estimate declaring an income of Rs. 1,50,000 on 31st March, 1975 depositing an amount of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e lower authorities before us, vehemently argued that firstly no penalty could be levied in the case of the assessee as it was under a bona fide belief that no estimate is required to be filed u/s 212(3) and secondly, at least Rs. 87,000 deposited by the assessee as advance tax on the basis of estimate filed by 31st March, 1975 should have been taken into account while levying the penalty. He also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7, 000 deposited by the assessee on the basis on advance tax estimate filed on 31st March 1975 on total income of Rs. 1,50,000 should have been taken into consideration while levying the penalty u/s 273 (b). It is trite law and also apparent from the statute that the amount of tax assessed is not the gross tax computed but the tax paid in advances to be deducted and it is always the income-tax pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X