9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 216(a) regarding liability to pay interest under Income-tax Act, 1961 for deficient payment of advance tax in specific instalments for assessment year 1982-83. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertained to a question of law arising from an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the liability of an assessee to pay interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the underestimation of advance tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee initially estimated the advance tax liability at Rs. 46,12,500 and paid the first two instalments accordingly. However, close to the due date for the final instalment, the assessee revised the estimate to Rs. 68,88,000, resulting in a shortfall in the first two instalments. The Assessing Officer charged interest under section 216 due to the underestimation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the levy, but the Tribunal ruled that interest should be calculated based on the aggregate advance tax paid during the year, not on individual instalments. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, emphasizing that the underestimation of advance tax resulted in reduced payments for the first two instalments, leading to a clear violation of section 209A of the Act. The court highlighted that the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the underestimation of advance tax in the initial instalments and the subsequent revision. The absence of a valid reason or justification for the discrepancy in advance tax payments led to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 216. The court noted that the revision of advance tax at the time of the final instalment did not absolve the assessee of the consequences of underestimating the tax liability earlier in the year. Additionally, the court pointed out that the assessee did not demonstrate any significant change in business activities or income patterns that could justify the revised estimate. The failure to furnish a reasonable explanation for the underestimation further supported the decision to hold the assessee accountable for interest under section 216. In considering precedents cited by both parties, the court distinguished cases where underestimation of advance tax was deemed deliberate to reduce tax burden from the present scenario. The court concluded that the deliberate underestimation of advance tax by the assessee in the case at hand warranted the application of section 216 of the Act. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the assessee was indeed liable to pay interest on the deficient advance tax payments for the first two instalments. The judgment clarified that deliberate underestimation of tax obligations could not excuse the assessee from the consequences outlined in the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the High Court's decision resolved the question in favor of the Revenue, establishing the liability of the assessee to pay interest under section 216 of the Act due to the deliberate underestimation of advance tax payments for specific instalments during the assessment year 1982-83.
|
