JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. The assessee was required to make an advance payment of tax under section 18-A (1) of the Indian income tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment year 1955-56. The advance payment demanded was of a sum of Rs. 70,541-2-0. 2. The assessee acted under sub-section (2) of section 18-A and sent his own estimates of the tax payable by him. On 14th June 1954 he estimated his income at Rs. 9,500 and the tax payable at Rs. 689-1-0. On 15th March 1955 he increased the estimate of the income to Rs. 25,000 and the tax payable to Rs. 4,355-14-0. 3. The assessment for 1955-56 was completed on 30th March 1955: The total income according to that assessment was Rs. 89,445 and the tax payable Rs. 54,875-10-0. The total income was made up as follows: Property: (a) own Rs. 15,957 18,023 (b) wife and minor children included under section 16 (3) Rs. 2,066 Business: (a) own Rs. 35,141 68,591 (b) share income in the name of wife and minor children included under section 16 (3) Rs. 33,450 Other sources 2,831 Total Rs. 89,445 4. Sub-section (9) of section 18-A provides that the Income-tax Officer, in the course of any proceedings in connection with the regular assessment, is satisfied that any assessee has furnished under sub-section (2) estimates of the tan payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue, the assessee shall be de med to have deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, and the provisions of section 28, so far as may be, shall apply accordingly. Section 28 provides for the imposition of penalties, and acting under that section, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,500. He said: In the first instance, the assessee estimated his income at an absurdly low figure of Rs. 9,500 and on the last day he again estimated his income at Rs. 25,000. Even the 2nd estimate does not come anywhere near the income declared or assessed. The year of account for the assessee closed on 16th August 1954, about 7 months before the estimate was filed. The assessee is an experienced businessman and an old assessee. His income in the past few years stood between Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 1,26,000. The trade conditions during the year of account were also steady. The year of account for the assessee closed on 16th August 1954, about 7 months before the estimate was filed. The assessee is an experienced businessman and an old assessee. His income in the past few years stood between Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 1,26,000. The trade conditions during the year of account were also steady. There was, therefore, no reason to estimate his income at so low a figure. All the above facts clearly show that the assessee was deliberately underestimating his income. This attracts penalty under section 18-A (9). I impose a penalty of Rs. 6,500". 5. The Appellate Tribunal endorsed the decision; but reduced the penalty. It said: "In this case, we are satisfied for the reasons stated by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and that the penal provisions are applicable. The penalty levied is Rs. 6,500 besides a penal interest of Rs. 1,527 already charged in the assessment. Therefore, the penalty appears to be excessive. In our opinion, a penalty of Rs. 4,000 will be sufficient. In the result the appeal is allowed in part." 6. The questions referred to this Court are: "(1) Whether a penalty under section 28 could be imposed for a default under section 18-A (2)? "(2) Whether the income included in the total income under section 16 (3) is liable for payment of advance tax under section 18-A?" 7. There can be no doubt that a penalty under section 28 can be imposed for a default under section 18-A (2) in view of section 18-A (9) provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the assessee has furnished under section 18-A (2) estimates of the tax payable by him "which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue�. The Income-tax Officer found that the underestimate was deliberate. So did the Appellate Tribunal: We see no valid reason to differ, and answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the assessee. 8. The income subject to advance tax under sub-section (1) of section 18-A and sub-section (2) of that section is the total income of the assessee. The difference is only as regards the "previous year" to be taken into account. Under sub-section (1) the total income concerned is the total income of "the latest previous year in respect of which he has been assessed ". The difference is only as regards the "previous year" to be taken into account. Under sub-section (1) the total income concerned is the total income of "the latest previous year in respect of which he has been assessed ". And under sub-section (2) it is the total income of "the previous year for an assessment for the year next following. " 9. "Total Income" is defined in section 2 (15) the Act as follows: "The ' total income ' means total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4 computed the manner laid down in this Act." Section 16 (3) says: "In computing the total income of any individual for purpose of assessment, there shall be included (a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of l individual as arises directly or indirectly (i) from the membership of the wife in a firm of which her husband is a partner; (ii) from the admission of the minor to the benefits partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner.� 10. Counsel for the assessee emphasises the Words "for the purpose of assessment'' occurring in the provision extracted above. His contention is that the income specified therein need be included in the total income only for the purpose of assessment and that it need not be taken into account for the purpose of an estimate under subsection (2) of section 18-A. 11. We see no merit in this contention. The ingredients that go to make up the total income of an assessee under the Act are the same; whether it be for the purpose of calculating the tax payable in advance or the tax ultimately to be assessed. And that is how it should be. 12. The scheme of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, is to charge income-tax on the income of the previous year and to make the assessment on the basis of the Finance Act for the assessment year. All that section 18-A does is to reconcile that scheme with the demand for an advance payment of tax or the concept of "pay as you earn". 13. In the light of what is stated above the second question has also to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. We do so 14. The reference is answered as above. No costs. 15. 13. In the light of what is stated above the second question has also to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. We do so 14. The reference is answered as above. No costs. 15. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub- section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income lax Act, 1922.