9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an income of Rs. 4,92,550 against which only Rs. 22,000 was paid by way of advance-tax and Rs. 328 was the tax deducted at source. Therefore, the assessee was to pay balance of tax u/s 140A within one month from the date of filing of the return. The same having not been paid by the assessee, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings to which the assessee's reply was that on account of dislocation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timate basis. This penalty had to be computed at the rate of 2% of the tax due for every month of default and directed the ITO to verify the same and modify it. Subject to this observation the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The assessee has come up in second appeal before us. 3. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in this appeal. So far as the plea of the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It was next argued that the CIT(A) had wholly misapplied the provisions of law. This case relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76 and the return was filed on 12th Nov., 1975. The advance-tax, therefore, was payable on or before 12th Dec., 1975. The levy of penalty at the rate of 2% of the tax for every month of default provided for by sub-s. (3) of s. 140A was regulated by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the intention of the CIT(A) was really not to enhance the penalty, rather he was critical of the levy of penalty on purely estimate basis. At any rate, the method of computation adopted by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of law as it existed at that time. Therefore, the order in question cannot be sustained. 5. It was next argued by the representative of the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
