Y. R. MEENA, J. ( 1 ) ON an application under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 2 of the paper book for our opinion :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 209a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no statutory obligation on the assessee to file the estimate of income-tax filed by it and in that view holding that no penalty under Section 273 (1) (a) of the said Act was exigible in this case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty under Section 273 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ( 2 ) THE assessee is a company. The return is filed by the assessee on December 3, 1985 for the assessment year 1985-86. During this year the assessee has total production of green leaves 19,72,700 kgs. and net production of tea is 16,32,444 kgs. The rate of production during this year comes to 24. 05 per cent, while in the preceding assessment year the production of green leaves was 16,32,444 kgs. , the rate of production was 25. 11 per cent. A query was put to counsel for the assessee regarding shortfall of percentage in the yield. In reply a reason given for the shortfall in the production of tea that the tea production depends upon the quality of the green leaves produced in the garden and the quality depends upon rain and weather conditions. ( 3 ) THE Assessing Officer has further found that the assessee has filed an untrue estimate of advance tax payable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. He imposed the penalty of Rs. 7,03,000 under Section 273 as provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ( 4 ) IN appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has cancelled the penalty, according to him, penalty should not be imposed only because the assessee filed the untrue estimate. For penalty a finding should be given that assessee has furnished the statement of advance tax payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue. ( 4 ) IN appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has cancelled the penalty, according to him, penalty should not be imposed only because the assessee filed the untrue estimate. For penalty a finding should be given that assessee has furnished the statement of advance tax payable by him which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue. ( 5 ) IN appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that when the assessee was not liable to file the estimate for advance tax even then if the assessee filed the estimate, penalty cannot be imposed even if the estimate is untrue. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee, Mr. Bajoria, submits that when the nil income was assessed in the just earlier year he placed reliance on the decision of the court in the case of CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd, and Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Shree Sitaram Public Charitable Trust. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the year ending in this case is February 28, 1985, the estimate filed on December 3, 1985, income estimated was Rs. 12,79,000 tax paid Rs. 7,42,000, income assessed Rs. 29,93,290 tax paid Rs. 16,87,795, 831/3 per cent, thereon Rs. 14,06,000. On these facts when the estimate filed was untrue, the penalty under Section 273 has rightly been imposed at Rs. 7,03,000. ( 8 ) IN the case of Indian Molasses Company (P.) Ltd. this court has taken the view that where the assessed income and the returned income of the latest previous year of the assessee-company were minus figures, no statement of advance tax under Section 209a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is required to be sent by the assessee and, consequently, interest under Section 217 of the Act is not payable by the assessee. ( 9 ) IN Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Tawadia (K. M.), ITO [1987] 165 ITR 99, the Bombay High Court held that the petitioners had been assessed to nil income in the previous assessment year, the provision of under Section 209 (1) (a), did not make the petitioner liable to payment of advance tax, the petitioners were not obliged to send the statement referred to in Section 209 (A) (Z) (a ). The assessee was not labile to pay interest under Section 217 (1) (a) or penalty under Section 273 (1) (b) of the Act. The assessee was not labile to pay interest under Section 217 (1) (a) or penalty under Section 273 (1) (b) of the Act. ( 10 ) IN CIT v. Power Plants Sale and Services Pvt. Ltd. [1994j 209 ITR 655, at page 658, the Rajasthan High Court has observed as under :"the provisions of Section 212 (3) as it was existing at the relevant time, therefore, would be applicable even in a case where the assessment was made and nil tax liability was determined (sic ). From this proposition of law, it would be seen that the assessee is under no obligation to file the estimate of advance tax. If the estimate of advance tax is filed even if there was no obligation to file such an estimate without notice or order served on an assessee under Section 210 (3), then the estimate filed cannot be considered as having been filed under Section 212 (3 ). The view which has been taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect and, therefore, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty was exigible under Section 273 (a) of the Income-tax Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 and cancelling the penalty of Rs. 2,557. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. " ( 11 ) WHEN the assessee was not under obligation to fife the estimate of advance tax, if he has filed the estimate of advance tax without notice or orders served on an assessee under Section 210 (3), in that case the estimate filed cannot be considered for the purpose of penalty. We agree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Power Plants Sale and Services Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 209 ITR 655. ( 12 ) IN the result, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.