J N DUTT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that for the assessment year 1953-54, the Income-tax Officer of Hazaribagh issued a notice upon the assessee under Section 18-A (1) of the Income-tax Act calling upon him to pay the tax in three equal instalments of Rs. 6,690/- each. The first instalment was to be paid on 15-9-1952, the second on 15-12-1952, and the third on 15-3-1953. The notice was served on the assessee on 21-11-1952, and so he had to pay the total amount of tax in two equal instalments, the first on 15-12-1952, and the second on 15-3-1953, under the provisions of Section 18-A (1) of the Act. It appears that the assessee committed default in payment of the first instalment due on 15-12-1952. Before the date on which the next instalment fell due, that is, on 15-3-1953, the assessee filed a revised estimate of his income which came to Rs. 3,000/- and the assessee also declared that no tax was payable by him. This declaration was made when the revised estimate was submitted by the assesses on 4-3-1953. For default in payment of the first instalment, the Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,000 acting under the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the Income-tax Act. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal on 4-3-1953, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the demand for penalty was set aside. In the course of his order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stated as follows : "The demand was wiped off by the submission of an estimate under Section 18-A showing a total income of Rs. 3,000/- only. The estimate was received in the I. T. O.'s office on 4-3-53 i.e., within the period flowed for filing the appeal against the imposition of the penalty. Thus the appeal is not barred under the first proviso to Section 30 (1).'' The Income-tax Department presented an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer levy ing the penalty of Rs. 1000 upon the assessee.

(2.) As required by the High Court under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, the appellate Tribunal has stated a case upon the following question of law :

(3.) On behalf of the assessee, learned Counsel put forward the argument that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in holding that the amount of Rs. 6,690/-, which was the amount of the first instalment, was a tax payable by the assessee on 4-3-1953, on which date the appeal was preferred by the assesses before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In order to examine the validity of this argument, it is necessary to reproduce the language of Section 30, Sub-section