The short facts giving rise to the appeal are these. The original assessee was Purshottamdas Thakurdas, a well-known businessman of Bombay. He died sometime after the proceedings in the High Court had terminated and the appellants herein are his legal representatives. As nothing turns upon the distinction between the assessee and his legal representatives in this case, we shall ignore it for the purpose of this judgment. By a notice issued under s. 18·A(l} of the Act the Income·tax Officer concern· ed required the assessee to make advance payment of tax in respect of the assessment year 19i7-1948. On September 15, 1946, the asscssee submitted an estimate of his income under sub-s. (2) of s. 18-A. In this estimate the assessee showed his total income at Rs. 4,64,000/-. He deducted the sum of Rs. 3,64,000/·, stated to be his dividend income, on the ground that s. 18 of the Act applied to such income. After claiming credit for Rs. 10,000/· on the ground of double taxation relief, the assessee estimated the advance tax payable by him at Rs. 2,67, 752/-. The Income-tax Officer took the view that under s. 18·A(2} of the Act the assessee was bound to include in his estimate, and to pay advance super-tax on, his dividend income. Since that was not done and the advance tax paid was less than eighty per cent of the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment, he levied penal interest on the assessee under sub-s. (6) of s. 18· A of the Act in respect of the super·tax payable on the dividend income. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. On a further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held by its order dated October 25, 1957, that sub-s. (6) of s. 18-A did not apply to qividend income and the assessee w~ poi
