Advance-tax estimate penalty requires contemporaneous knowledge of falsity; later profits or non-revision do not by themselves justify levy.

Penalty for filing an allegedly untrue advance-tax estimate is not attracted unless the estimate was known, or there was reason to believe it was untrue, when it was furnished. A later rise in profits or a failure to revise the estimate does not retrospectively make an honest estimate dishonest. Penal provisions must be construed strictly, and liability cannot rest solely on the assessed income ultimately exceeding the estimate. The stated principle is that contemporaneous falsity, not subsequent events, governs penalty exposure under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c).

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of penalty for filing an allegedly untrue advance-tax estimate was valid where the estimate was honest when made but the assessee later failed to revise it after subsequent profits arose.

Analysis: The liability to penalty under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c) depended on the estimate being known, or having reason to be believed, to be untrue at the time it was furnished. The governing requirement was contemporaneous consciousness of falsity when the estimate was submitted. Subsequent events or a later omission to revise the estimate could not relate back and convert an originally honest estimate into a dishonest one. Penal provisions of this nature had to be construed strictly and could not be invoked merely because the ultimate assessed income exceeded the estimate.

Conclusion: The penalty was not attracted and the levy was not valid in law.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c), the estimate must be untrue at the time of filing with contemporaneous knowledge or reason to believe it was untrue; later events or failure to revise the estimate do not by themselves establish deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

---