TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and also that the payment of advance tax should be given credit while computing the levy of interest under s. 139 (8). 2. As far as the first contention is concerned it is unnecessary to go to the details because the matter is already covered by the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1969-70 in ITA No. 462 (Mds) 75-76, referred to by the AAC in para 5 of his order and followed by him. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a case, where we find that the very liability to interest under s. 139(8) is in question. In such case we have been holding that the appeal is maintainable. Therefore, rejecting the contention that the appeal is not maintainable we now proceed to consider the issue on merits. 4. The charging of interest under s. 139(8) arose as a result of the ITO treating the advance tax payment made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the assessee, that payment should have been treated by the Department as advance tax and given credit. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in Rasiklal Kamdar vs. CIT(1). It is interesting to refer to the observations at page 58 of the report, which is reproduced below: "We are of opinion that even the expression advance tax as understood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
