Advance tax estimate penalty set aside where evidence of filing required fresh verification and reconsideration.

Penalty for alleged failure to furnish an advance tax estimate was not sustainable on a bare assumption of non-filing where the assessee produced material indicating that Form No. 29 had been filed. The existing finding could not be treated as conclusive without proper verification of that evidence, so the penalty order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication. The revenue was to be given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence before the Income-tax Officer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty levied for failure to furnish the advance tax estimate under section 212(3)(A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication on the evidence of filing.

Analysis: The assessee produced material to show that an advance tax estimate in Form No. 29 had allegedly been filed, whereas the authorities had proceeded on the footing that no such estimate was filed. In view of this evidence, the existing finding sustaining penalty could not be treated as conclusive without proper verification. The matter therefore required reconsideration with an opportunity to the Income-tax Officer to be heard.

Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penalty for non-furnishing of an advance tax estimate is imposed on an assumption of non-filing, and credible evidence of filing is subsequently produced, the matter must be remitted for fresh consideration after giving the revenue a fair opportunity to contest that evidence.

---