1990 (10) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Limited company's appeal allowed for underpayment penalty due to fair estimate, penalty canceled, refund ordered if collected.

The Tribunal allowed the limited company's appeal against a penalty for underpayment of advance tax, emphasizing the bona fide nature of the assessee's ... Advance Tax, Bona Fide, False Estimate, Total Income Issues:- Appeal against penalty imposed by Assessing Officer for underpayment of advance tax- Bona fide nature of estimate filed by the assessee- Consideration of Palekar Tribunal's proposal for salaries and wages- Assessment of penalty under section 273 of the Act- CIT (Appeals) decision confirmation of penalty- Arguments presented by both parties- Application of relevant case laws in determining the fairness of the estimate- Decision on cancellation of penalty and direction for refund if collectedAnalysis:The case involved an appeal by a limited company against a penalty of Rs. 37,672 imposed by the Assessing Officer for underpayment of advance tax. The assessee, deriving income from a daily publication, had initially estimated the tax payable at Rs. 38,70,000 based on an income of Rs. 60,00,000. Subsequently, after considering the potential liability from the Palekar Tribunal's proposal, the assessee revised the estimate to Rs. 25,73,550. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings as the advance tax paid was less than 75% of the tax assessed. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating the Palekar Tribunal's proposal was issued after the initial estimate. The assessee argued that the estimate was bona fide and fair, considering the potential liability.The assessee's Counsel relied on various case laws to support the argument that the estimate was made in good faith. The Counsel highlighted that the assessee, although required to pay Rs. 20,88,190, estimated a higher tax of Rs. 38.70 lakhs due to the potential liability from the Palekar Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct in filing the initial estimate was bona fide, as it voluntarily estimated a higher tax amount. Despite the Palekar Tribunal's proposal being issued later, the Tribunal found the second estimate to be fair and not untrue or unfair. Considering the progress of the Tribunal's work, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was unwarranted, leading to the cancellation of the penalty and a direction for refund if already collected.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the bona fide nature of the assessee's estimate and the fair conduct in estimating tax liabilities based on potential future obligations. The decision was supported by an analysis of relevant case laws and the circumstances surrounding the estimates filed by the assessee.