RAM RATTAN, A.M. ORDER This appeal by assessee is directed against order of AAC sustaining penalty of Rs. 2,100 imposed by ITO under s. 273 of Act. 2. Before considering issue it is considered necessary to consider facts of case. In this case, assessment was completed under s. 143(1) of Act on total income of Rs. 46,930. Agricultural income of Rs. 3,700 was aggregated for rate purposes. Tax payable on assessed income was computed by ITO at Rs. 17,150. On return of total income filed by assessee, ITO made endorsement, inter alia to following effect, initiating penalty proceedings under s. 273: "Issue notice under s. 274/273 for advance tax default." 3 . In show-cause notice under s. 274 r/w s. 273 issued by ITO before imposing penalty he has referred to default committed by assessee under s. 209A(1)(a) of IT Act. In first para of penalty order passed by him under s. 273, he has referred to facts leading to initiation of penalty proceedings thus: "Penalty proceedings for filing estimate of advance-tax which assessee had reasons to believe to be untrue were initiated under s. 273 of IT Act." Towards end of order while imposing penalty, ITO has observed as under: "Keeping in view above position I hold assessee in default for not filing estimate of advance-tax under s. 209A(4) of IT Act, 1961." While computing actual penalty leviable, he has given deduction for advance-tax paid under s. 210 and worked out penalty leviable as under: 75% of assessed tax Rs. 12,768 Tax paid under s. 210 Rs. 2,279 Balance Rs. 10,498 Penalty @ 20 % Rs. 2,100 Some more facts are also necessary to be mentioned. According to assessee, statement of advance-tax was filed on 15th Sept., 1980 on basis of last income determining advance-tax liability at Rs. 2,279 as required under s. 209A(1)(a) and payment thereof was made in three equal instalments as required under law. According to ITO, no such statement of advance-tax was filed and assessee made payment of advance-tax in three equal instalments without furnishing statement of advance-tax as required under s. 209A(1)(a). estimate of advance-tax was, however, filed as required under s. 209A(2) of Act on 16th March, 1981 determining tax liability at Rs. 2,279 for which payment had already been made in three equal instalments. 4 . penalty imposed by ITO and sustained by AAC is to be considered against above back drop of facts. ld. counsel for assessee contended that entire proceedings right from initiation to passing of order by ITO are vague, full of contradictions and illegal. At outset he submitted that initiation of penalty proceedings is vague in as much as under s. 273 penalty proceedings can be initiated for six different defaults but ITO has not specified particular sub-section or clause of s. 273 under which he had initiated proceedings. Then in show-clause notice before imposition of penalty, ITO has referred to default under s. 209A(1)(a) which is for non-filing of statement on advance-tax to be filed by assessees of basis of last assessed income. Then in first paragraph of penalty order, ITO says that estimate of advance-tax filed was false which is contradiction to show-cause notice issued by him. According to assessee, since estimate of advance-tax was filed after due date prescribed under s. 211(1)(ii) which is 15th March, 1981, it was invalid estimate and no penalty with reference to that could be levied. According to him, estimate being invalid, legal position is as if no estimate was filed. ld. counsel for assessee further submitted that ultimately penalty was imposed by him for default under s. 209A(4) and not for default under s. 209A(1)(a) or s. 209A(2). This according to him was another contradiction in order. He further submitted that in show cause notice issued default under s. 209A(4) of s. 209A(2) was never mentioned. According to him, ITO was himself not sure as to under what particular sub-section or clause of s. 273, penalty was imposable. Finally, according to computation of penalty he submitted that it would seem that ITO levied penalty for filing false estimate of advance- tax. According to him, therefore, entire penalty proceedings including passing of penalty order by ITO was full of vagueness, contradictions and illegalities. He, therefore, urged that same was liable to be quashed. ld. departmental representative of other hand, contended that no statement of advance-tax was filed as required under s. 209A(1)(a) and estimate of advance-tax filed by assessee on 16th March, 1981 being out of time was invalid. He further contended that there was non-filing of estimate as well as filing of estimate which, according to ld. counsel for assessee, in itself was contradiction. estimate could be false only if such estimate was filed. If no estimate was filed, there was no question of its being false. According to ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, stand taken by ld. departmental representative was contradiction in itself. 5. We have given very careful consideration to rival submissions. We have already reproduced above facts as gathered from orders of ITO, AAC and pleadings made before us by rival parties. We have in complete agreement with reasons given by ld. counsel for assessee that initiation of proceedings in case is vague and illusory inasmuch as it does not indicate specific default for which penalty proceedings were initiated particularly when there are six different situations under which penalty proceedings can be initiated under s. 273. Then is show-cause notice default-under s. 209A(1) (a) while penalty imposed is titled as for default under s. 209A (4). penalty actually imposed is as if estimate filed was false. It was submitted by ld. departmental representative that no statement of advance-tax was filed. Therefore, there was no question of its being false and no penalty could be levied under s. 273(1) (a) for default under s. 209A(1)(a). estimate of advance-tax filed on 16th March, 1981 is also invalid because it was filed beyond period allowed under s. 211 (1)(ii) and, therefore, no cognizance of this estimate could also be taken. Penalty for non-furnishing of estimate under s. 209A(1)(a) can be levied under s. 273 (1)(b) but this was not charge against assessee in as much as first paragraph refers to false estimate. Unless statement of advance-tax or estimate of advance-tax or revised estimate of advance-tax is filed as required under s. 209A(1)(a) or s. 209A(1),(2) and (3), provisions of sub-s. (4) of s. 209A would not be attracted. There was no case for imposing penalty for default under s. 209A (4) either. Considered from any angle, order passed by ITO is full of contradictions and is illegal. Even initiation of proceedings is illusory and, therefore, penalty order passed is ab initio void. In view of above discussion, we are unable to sustain order of AAC confirming penalty. order of AAC is, therefore, annulled. 6. In result, appeal is allowed. *** RAMESHWAR DASS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER