9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), on the ground that the interest already granted to the assessee under s. 214 of the Act should be withdrawn. The withdrawal of the interest allowed earlier to the assessee by the revocation order passed under s. 154 was as follows: The total amount of income-tax payable by the assessee was determined in the original assessment dated June 28, 1976, at Rs. 80,176. The tax deducted at source amounted to Rs. 62,501. Apart from the tax deducted at source, the assessee had also paid a total sum of Rs. 1,85,200 by way of cheques as advance tax, and the details of the payments are set out below : ----------------------------------------------------- Cheque date&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments made on December 22, 1971, and February 29, 1972, should be treated as advance tax payments and the interest under s. 214 of the Act should be granted on the net amount of the refund due to it, i.e., Rs. 1,67,525. The ITO, however, did not treat the payments on December 22,1971, and February 29, 1972, as advance tax payments as they had been made beyond the due dates mentioned in s. 208 of the Act. Accordingly, he did not allow interest under s. 214 of the Act on revisional assessment proceedings though he had allowed such interest in the original assessment. On appeal by the assessee before the AAC, it contended that all the payments should be treated as made towards advance tax payable by it, and, therefore, the interest under s. 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be treated as and towards advance tax and that the interest under s. 214 can only be in relation to the advance tax paid on due dates. In support of the said contention, strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1980] 121 ITR 339. No doubt, that decision squarely applies to the contention of the Revenue. In that case, the assessee had paid the first instalment of advance tax in respect of the financial year 1974-75, but did not pay the second and third instalments on or before the respective due dates. The income-tax payable was finally determined and refund of excess payment was made to the assessee. The assessee claimed interest under s. 214 of the Act on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have proceeded against the petitioner and levied penalty for the delay. But Sri Y. V. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the right of the Revenue to impose penalty for the delay has nothing to do with the right of the assessee to claim interest on the excess payments made by him as advance tax and that even if the Revenue bad such a right, the petitioner is entitled to interest from April 1, 1975, as, before any penalty proceedings were taken against him, the company has deposited the entire advance tax as per its estimate. We do not feel persuaded to accept this contention ". However, on a due consideration of the matter, we find it is not possible for us to accept the view taken in that case. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counting year, it will have to be taken as advance tax for the purpose of s. 214 of the Act as, otherwise, credit cannot be given to that sum at the stage of the assessment under s. 214. The court also has pointed out that the subject-matter of the mandatory provisions of ss. 214 and 217 is the same except for the difference that s. 214 contemplates the Government paying interest on the amount of advance tax which is in excess of the tax payable under the regular assessment while s. 217 enables the Government to recover interest from an assessee who had not paid advance tax in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that if an amount paid after the due date is not to be treated as advance tax for the purpose of s. 214, it cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied, that will not take away the right of the assessee to claim interest on the amount of advance tax paid, for, the concept under s. 214 is totally different and unconnected with the deprivation of interest on excess advance tax. The same view has also been taken by the Kerala High Court in Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India [1982] 135 ITR 39 and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Traub (India) P. Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 525. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jagannath Narayan Kutumbik Trust [1983] 144 ITR 526, has also taken the same view. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1980] 121 ITR 339, had been dissented from in some of the above decisions. Thus, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
