1978 (2) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of Rs. 1,000 was imposed by the ITO due to the default of non-submission of revised estimate under s. 212(3A) of the act as also non-payment of advance tax in accordance with correct estimate of income. 4. The assessee appealed before the AAC and contended that the ITO ignoring the explanation given by the assessee for non-submission of revised estimate imposed penalty in this case. It was claimed that the assessee was partner of 3 firms and that the estimated income of the firm for the year under consideration could not be made available to the assessee for filing the revised estimate by him. It was, therefore, submitted that there was a reasonable cause in the case and, therefore, no penalty should have been imposed. The AAC found th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the first time during the year under consideration, the assessee could not comply with the terms of the newly inserted s. 212(3A) of the Act. He, therefore, pleaded that the lower authorities failed to consider that there was reasonable cause in this case and arbitrarily imposed penalty which was fit to be cancelled. The learned Departmental Representative supporting the orders of the AAC contended that the assessee should not have pleaded ignorance of the law when the particular provision was already in the statue. He claimed that the mistake pointed out by the assessee's counsel in the notice issued by the ITO was a clerical mistake which could not invalidate the proceeding. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty was legally imposed in....