1981 (11) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITO under s. 221 of the IT Act. According to the ITO, the September instalment of the advance tax payable by the assessee amounting to Rs. 9,625 was not paid and, therefore, he issued a notice to the assessee asking him to show cause why penalty should not be levied. There was no reply and, therefore, the ITO proceeded on to levy a penalty amounting to Rs. 1000. 2. On appeal it was argued befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esentatives of the parties at length in this appeal. In the first instance, it was argued that on 11th Dec., the date on which the notice was served upon the assessee was Saturday which was a holiday in the assessee's officer. Therefore, the notice was actually delivered to the assessee on the 13th, the date fixed for hearing. Though the order of the ITO is actually dated the 24th Dec., the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of advance tax within time, unless the assessee filed revised estimate showing lesser advance tax to be pay able so that technically the default by the assessee is there. 4. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), it has been held that penalty may not be leviable for a mere technical or venial breach of law, merely because it is lawful to do so. The Penalty in the pr....