9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following question of law has been referred for our opinion for the assessment year 1974-75: "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest charged under section 216 of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 11,940?" We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1980-81 and also the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 251 and confirmed the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). At the hearing of this reference, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that since the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent-assessee, has submitted that in the above case the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer as he had not given any reasons for levying interest under section 216 of the Act but in the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given detailed reasons for setting aside levy of interest under section 216 and, therefore, there is no need for remanding the matter to the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee-company for making out the tax calculations in respect of each year, reflect that the assessee had followed the same procedure, method, and basis of estimate of sales as in the past. Therefore, there is no indication of any suppression on the part of the assessee to suggest that the advance tax was partly withheld. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has not brought any facts on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
