1980 (3) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... levy of a penalty under s. 273 for a sum of Rs. 3,756 by the ITO for the asst. yr. 1972-73. The ITO found that the assessee did not comply with the provisions contained in s. 212 (3). He observed that "the assessment in this case was completed on a total income of Rs. 3,38,741 as against the declared income of Rs. 3,34,005. The assessee did not comply with the provisions of s. 212(2) of the IT Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... In fact the last instalment had been paid almost 6 months after the expiry of the previous year. The provision of s. 212 clearly lays down that it is not only the estimate that is required to be filed, but the payment of tax as per estimate is to be made by 15th Sept., 15th Dec and 15th March,. The ITO, while levying the penalty, gave credit for the two instalments of advance-tax even though they....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....big margin. Finally, even the tax payable in accordance with his own estimate was not paid by the due dates". 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITO has not specified the default for which liability was created on the assessee under s. 273. S. 273 has three cls (a), (b) and (c) which provide for the levy of penalty in different situations. Cl. (a) provided for liability ....