TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (3) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year, the ITO by his notice of demand dated 25th May, 1965, which was served on the assessee-company on 31st May, 1965, called upon the assessee-company to pay (on the basis of regular assessment for the year 1960-61) advance tax of Rs. 33,35,954 in four equal instalments on or before 1st June, 1965, 1st September, 1965, 1st December, 1965, and 1st March, 1966, respectively. The assessee-company did not pay the first instalment which was in the sum of Rs. 8,33,988.65 by the specified due date, viz., 1st June, 1965. Accordingly, the ITO issued a show cause notice to the assessee-company under s. 221 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, asking for its explanation why penalty should not be levied. The date fixed for hearing was 6th July, 1965.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the view of the AAC, the assessee-company had persisted in its default for one and a half months and he was, therefore, fully satisfied with the bona fide nature of the action taken by the ITO. It was further noted that the return showing " nil " estimate had been filed on 19th August, 1965, i.e., long after the penalty order was served on the assessee-company. In the view of the AAC, this could not operate retrospectively and justify the non-payment of the first instalment of advance tax on the specified date. The quantum of penalty was also upheld by the AAC. A copy of the order of the AAC rejecting the appeal of the assessee-company is annexed as annex. 'B' to the statement of case. The assessee-company then canvassed the matter in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee with the views expressed by the said Bench of the Tribunal. It considered several statutory provisions which had relevance on the question being agitated before them by the assessee and observed that tax was the genus under the Act and advance tax is but one of the several species of that genus. In the view that it took, the Tribunal derived support from the decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court given under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, viz., S. Narayanappa & Brothers v. ITO [1959] 37 ITR 257 (Mys). In the view of the Tribunal the scheme of the Act of 1961 pertaining to penalty for non-payment of tax was not in any significant manner different from the scheme in that behalf as detailed in the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In this v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect but given directly on the provisions under consideration before us, viz., s. 221 of the Act of 1961. The first of these decisions which may be noted is Smt. Kusum Kumari v. Union of India [1972] 85 ITR 19 (All). It has been observed by R. S. Pathak J. (as he then was), speaking for the Bench, that in order to give effect to s. 218 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the expression " tax " in s. 221 should be considered widely so as to include therein advance tax also (see observations at page 22). In the opinion of the Bench s. 221 of the 1961 Act applies to default in payment of advance tax. S. Narayanappa & Brothers' case [1959] 37 ITR 257 (Mys) was referred to by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid decision. A s....