1977 (8) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued notice under s. 274/273 for alleged default of filing untrue estimate and his order under s. 273(a) levying penalty for alleged default under s. 212(3A) failure to furnish estimate was invalid and improper and the learned AAC has erred in confirming the levy of penalty. (2) That the assessee had filed estimate under s. 212(3A) and had paid tax accordingly and as such there was no default for which penalty was levied. The learned AAC has erred in holding that the estimate filed under s. 212(3A) was not as per spirit of s. 212(3A) and was to evade tax. (3) There being no default for which penalty was imposed and the levy of penalty being unlawful should have been cancelled and the learned AAC erred in confirming the same. (4) W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deserved to be cancelled. The AAC considered this submission of the assessee in the light of the facts and stated in paragraph 2 supra, and he came to the conclusion that since the tax paid by the assessee under the estimate filed on 10th March, 1975 under s. 212(3A) fell far short of the demand created on the assessment, the filing of the estimate under s. 212(3A) was not in accordance with the spirit of that section but was merely to evade the payment of tax which was due and would have been payable as per assessment. The AAC held that penalty could be levied for non-filing of correct estimate under s. 212(3A) and he confirmed the penalty. 4. Against the order of the AAC, the assessee has come up in appeal. The learned counsel for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rch, 1975 by which date, the learned Departmental Representative said, the assessee must have know clearly and fully the business trend and the likely current income, and in such circumstances, the wide disparity between the income shown in the estimate i.e. Rs. 50,000 and the income declared by the assessee i.e. Rs. 96,000 in the return of income could be an appropriate basis for the conclusion that the assessee had deliberately filed an untrue estimate and was, therefore, liable to penalty under s. 271(a). 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We must say, in the first place, that although the proceedings were initiated by the ITO and the show cause notice was issued by him for filing an untrue estimate, the penalty ha....