KUSUM KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the imposition and collection of penalties for the omission to pay advance tax demanded for the financial year 1968-69.

(2.) THE petitioner is a proprietor of the Naaz Cinema, Jawahar Square, Allahabad. She had been previously assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Allahabad. On August 6, 1968, the Income-tax Officer served a notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,292 in instalments during the financial year 1968-69 as advance tax under Section 210 of the Act. It appears that the petitioner omitted to pay the advance tax. She says that she was preoccupied with the marriage of her daughter. She also claimed that she would have filed a revised estimate inasmuch as the income during the financial year 1968-69 was low, and this was evidenced subsequently by the assessment order for the assessment year 1969-70 whereby the total income was computed at Rs. 18,444 on which the tax liability came to Rs. 2,143 only. On January 10, 1969, the Income-tax Officer, Collection, Allahabad, made an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,280 under Section 221(1) of the Act because of the failure of the petitioner to pay the first and second instalments due on September 1, 1968, and December 1, 1968, respectively. Against this penalty order the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but, on July 29, 1969, the appeal was dismissed. Meanwhile, by an order dated February 27, 1969, the Income-tax Officer imposed a further penalty of Rs. 1,500 under Section 221(1) on account of the continuing default of the petitioner in omitting to pay the two instalments. A third penalty in the sum of Rs. 2,260 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer by his order dated March 31, 1969, on account of the default of the assessee in failing to pay the amount of advance tax demanded. THE petitioner applied in revision to the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264(1) of the Act against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerning the first penalty order and also directly against the second and third penalty orders. THE Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, has by his order dated August 3, 1970, dismissed the revision applications.

(3.) THEN follows Section 4(2), which declares :