9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed date given in section 211 relevant for interest under section 214 allowable to the assessee ?" 2. Since the question so framed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, did not bring out the real controversy in question, on a perusal of the statement of facts, it was clearly borne out that the real controversy is as to "whether on an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act could be granted on advance tax payments, made after the prescribed dates but within the financial year". Therefore, vide order of this court dated January 8, 2014, the real controversy was brought on record in the presence of counsel for the parties. 3. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee is a limited company. The respondent-assessee furnished a return of income on July 29, 1975, at Rs. 1,18,79,586. Total income was assessed at Rs. 1,25,32,040 under section 143(3)/144B of the Act, on September 7, 1978. The respondent-assessee paid an advance tax under section 210 amounting to Rs. 75,49,200. Further amount of Rs. 63,594 was deducted at source on securities/dividends, etc. Thus, the total tax paid came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 15 and December 15, but the last installment, which was to be paid on or before December 15, 1974, was deposited on December 26, 1974, i.e., beyond the prescribed due date but within the financial year cannot be said to be advance tax within the provisions of section 210 read with section 211. He further contended that it is only after the appellate order was passed, that an application under section 154 was moved with reference to grant of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act. He further contended that an order under section 154 can be passed only if there is mistake apparent or a glaring mistake on the face of record and, in the instant case, it could not be rectified particularly when the advance tax was not paid on or before the due dates. He further contended that if the amount was paid on or before the due date and interest not granted, then a mistake could be said to have occurred but when section 211 prescribes due dates and when due date has not been adhered to, then it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of record. He further contended that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is unjust and bad in law as the Income-tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und with interest and after waiting for some time, there being no other alternate before the assessee except to move application under section 154, hence, application was moved. He also relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Bharat Textile Works v. ITO [1978] 114 ITR 28 (Guj) ; CIT v. Traub (India) P. Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 525 (Bom) ; Addl. CIT v. Chitra Sagar [1980] 121 ITR 699 (Mad) ; Chandrakant Damodardas v. ITO [1980] 123 ITR 748 (Guj) ; Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India [1982] 135 ITR 39 (Ker) ; Anup Engineering Ltd. v. ITO [1984] 145 ITR 105 (Guj) ; CIT v. T. T. Investments and Trades P. Ltd. [1984] 148 ITR 347 (Mad) ; CIT v. G. J. Fernandez [1986] 160 ITR 602 (Karn) ; Pfizer Ltd. v. K. N. Anantharama Aiyar, CIT [1987] 163 ITR 461 (Bom) and CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. [1987] 167 ITR 306 (Raj). 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the judgments cited by counsel for the parties. 11. On a perusal of section 210 read with section 211 of the Income-tax Act, it is clear that the due dates are prescribed to mean that advance tax is required to be paid by an assessee within the prescribed dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, because payment has to be made during the previous financial year. There is no rhyme or reason in limiting the payment of interest to excess paid before the specified dates and not in the financial year. The Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. v. K. N. Anantharama Aiyar (supra), while dealing with interest under section 215, held that when the due date of payment was December 15, 1971, and the amount having been paid on December 22, 1971, was to be treated as advance tax and in view of the same, interest under section 215 was not leviable. The same view has been expressed as observed by us hereinabove and by the other High Courts in the judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee but the question, in the present case, is grant of interest in a case where an application under section 154 has been moved and the Assessing Officer as also the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holds the issue is debatable. In one of the judgments cited on behalf of the assessee in the case of CIT v. TT Investments and Trades P. Ltd. (supra), we notice reference of an application under section 154 but has not gone into the issue whether it was debatable or not and whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he apex court has considered that the mistake must be self-evident, and it must be an obvious and patent mistake and not one which can be established by a long drawn process of rea sonings. In view of the law propounded by the apex court, since there could have been two opinions, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that in the pro ceedings under section 154, the claim of interest in respect of instal ments is an arguable point and cannot be allowed." 13. This court again in the case of Jai Drinks P. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) had also expressed the same view. This view has also been expressed by other High Courts apart from this court and we may refer to some of the judgments in this regard. 14. The Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v. Moti Sagar Kapoor (supra), has observed (page 745 of 200 ITR) : "It is now well-settled that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), that, if there is a debatable question involved, then the provi sions of section 154 cannot be invoked becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
