Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (7) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irst respondent to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act and waive the interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In Writ Petition No. 7086 of 1988, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent in C. No. 1511/10 (1 2)/86/87 Cent. I, quash the impugned order of the first respondent in C. No. 1511/10 (1 2)/86/87 Cent. I dated March 20, 1987, and for the assessment year 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961, direct the first respondent to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act and waive the interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Except for the fact that W. P. No. 7031 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a revision before the first respondent under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that the mere non-filing of the returns (sic) in Form No. 29 could not take away the character of payment as advance tax on estimation because the petitioner had filed the returns in Form No. 28A and also paid the advance tax accordingly, and, therefore, the technical mistake in not filing the correct form will not stand in the way of granting the statutory interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, on the excess tax found to be refundable to the petitioner. However, the first respondent by his proceeding dated March 20, 1987, declined to waive the interest under section 139(8), and refused to grant interest under section 214 of the Inco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are expected to adopt the format prescribed in the statute. Having not furnished the same as required under law, the petitioner is not entitled to complain against the respondents and claim benefit under the Act. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of both the sides. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision in CIT v. T. T. Investments and Trades Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 148 ITR 347 (Mad) has a direct bearing on the instant case. In the said decision, it was held as follows : "For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee had, apart from tax deducted at source, paid a total amount of Rs. 1,85,200 towards advance tax. As the tax payable on completion of the assessment was only Rs. 80,176, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 on the payment in question." But in the instant case, admittedly, there is not even a delay in payment of the advance tax. The advance tax is paid in time. In J and J Dechane v. CIT [1990] 182 ITR 345, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, following the principles laid down by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26, held as follows : "Assuming that the Income-tax Officer is right in relying on the above technicalities, it does not automatically follow that the Officer should impose a penalty as if the assessee acted deliberately indefiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or that he acted in conscious disr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." In the third decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, in New India Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 76 (Mad), it was held as follows : "For the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for delay in filing the return, although the assessee had paid advance tax over and above what was due as tax. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that interest was chargeable under section 139(8) as the advance tax was not paid within time and, therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates