TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of advance tax. Petitioner, a limited company registered under the Companies Act, was served with a notice under s. 212(3) of the Act and was required to pay advance tax in three equal instalments for the assessment year 1975-76. Petitioner's year of account was calendar year 1974 and, therefore, it was required to pay advance tax in three equal instalments on the following dates under s. 211 of the Act, namely, 15th June, 1974, 15th September, 1974, and 15th December, 1974. There is no dispute as regards the payment of the first two instalments which were paid on the due dates. The third and the last instalment of Rs. 1,88,103 was payable on 15th December, 1974. Before this last instalment became due, petitioner's income-tax assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , could not be treated as advance tax. Petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated October 20, 1976, to the respondent demanding interest on the refund of Rs. 1,20,507 u/s. 214 of the Act. The respondent, however, by his letter dated November 11, 1976, rejected the petitioner's demand. Petitioner thereafter approached the CBDT claiming interest on the amount refunded, but it appears that the CBDT also rejected the petitioner's demand. The decision of the Board was communicated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, vide his letter dated October 10, 1978. Petitioner has, therefore, approached this court praying for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax is paid up, and (ii) it is paid up before the end of the financial year. There is no further condition that the instalments of advance tax must have been paid on or before the due dates mentioned in s. 211. Failure to pay the instalments on the due dates might involve an assessee in payment of penalty if the other conditions regarding penalty are satisfied, but the concept u/s. 214 being totally unconnected with deprivation of interest where penalty is incurred, the interest on excess advance tax must be paid if the two conditions are satisfied. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. In the present case, the two conditions referred to above are satisfied and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
