TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds penalty under Income-tax Act for failure to furnish advance tax estimates</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Krishnakant Somabhai And Co.</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Krishnakant Somabhai And Co. - [1994] 207 ITR 905, 115 CTR 21 Issues:1. Interpretation of section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding penalty imposition for default in furnishing advance tax estimate.2. Application of the provisions of section 273 in the context of the assessment year 1970-71.Analysis:The High Court of Gujarat addressed the interpretation of section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case involving the imposition of a penalty for a default committed by an assessee. The case pertained to the assessment year 1970-71, where the assessee failed to furnish a fresh estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) by December 15, 1969. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(c) due to this default. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on a previous decision, held that since section 273(c) was not on the statute book when the default occurred, the penalty could not be imposed. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty based on this reasoning.The Revenue contended that the Tribunal overlooked the specific provisions of section 273 and decided the case based on a general principle, arguing that the penalty cannot be imposed for a default that did not amount to an offense. The Court analyzed the language of section 273 and emphasized that the provision was applicable to proceedings related to the assessment year commencing on April 1, 1970. The Court highlighted that the statutory liability to furnish an estimate came into existence on April 1, 1969, and the penalty provision for non-compliance with section 212(3A) was effective from April 1, 1970. Therefore, the Court concluded that the penalty could indeed be imposed for the default in furnishing the advance tax estimate under section 212(3A).In light of the above analysis, the Court answered the questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the penalty could have been imposed under section 273(c) for the default committed by the assessee in not complying with the provisions of section 212(3A). Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, disposing of the reference without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 