1972 (8) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty upheld for advance tax default under Income-tax Act

Malavia Brothers And Co. Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

The court upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act for default in payment of advance tax, deeming the ... This reference arises out of an order of penalty passed against the assessee under section 221, sub-section (1), read with section 218 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty levied under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of relevant provisions related to the imposition of penalty under the Income-tax Act.3. Applicability of section 218 in determining default in payment of advance tax.4. Obligation of the assessee to file an estimate under section 212.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Penalty Levied under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in this case revolves around the validity of the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 221(1) read with section 218 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,712 on the assessee for default in payment of advance tax for the financial year 1965-66. The assessee challenged this penalty, but both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the penalty. The Tribunal then referred the question of law regarding the validity of the penalty to the High Court.2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions Related to the Imposition of Penalty:The court examined the scheme of the Income-tax Act, particularly the provisions related to the collection and recovery of tax under Chapter XVII. The court noted that income-tax is payable at two stages: by way of deduction at source and advance payment. The relevant sections for advance payment of tax include sections 207 to 219. Section 208 specifies the conditions under which advance tax is payable, while section 209 outlines the computation method. Section 210 allows the Income-tax Officer to require advance tax payment, and section 212 provides the assessee the right to file an estimate of their income and pay advance tax accordingly.3. Applicability of Section 218 in Determining Default in Payment of Advance Tax:Section 218 specifies when an assessee is deemed to be in default for non-payment of advance tax. The court pointed out that if an assessee fails to pay the instalment of advance tax as required under section 210 and does not file an estimate or revised estimate under section 212, they are deemed to be in default. The court highlighted that section 218(1) applies when no estimate is filed, and section 218(2) applies when an estimate is filed but the instalment is not paid according to it. In this case, the assessee did not file an estimate or revised estimate and failed to pay the instalments, thus falling under section 218(1).4. Obligation of the Assessee to File an Estimate under Section 212:The assessee argued that they were not required to file an estimate under section 212 because they anticipated a loss for the financial year. The court rejected this argument, stating that the scheme of advance tax requires the assessee to file an estimate if they wish to avoid the obligation imposed by the order under section 210. The court emphasized that even if the assessee estimates a loss or income below the taxable limit, they must file an estimate to displace the obligation to pay advance tax as determined by the Income-tax Officer. Failure to do so results in being deemed in default under section 218, attracting penalty under section 221(1).Conclusion:The court concluded that the assessee was rightly deemed to be in default for failing to pay the instalments of advance tax and not filing an estimate under section 212. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 221(1) was valid. The court answered the referred question in the affirmative and directed the assessee to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.Question answered in the affirmative.