1994 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 216 of the Income-tax Act regarding the levy of interest on underestimation of advance tax.

In this judgment, the High Court of Gujarat addressed the question of whether the assessee was liable to pay interest amounting to Rs. 21,840 under section 216 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1976-77. The court referred to the case of Shree Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CIT and emphasized that the levy of interest under section 216 is not mandatory but directory. The court highlighted that underestimation of advance tax may not always be intentional and could be due to genuine mistakes, doubtful legal positions, or circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The court noted that the legislature intended to make the assessee pay interest only if there was a deliberate or intentional underestimation of advance tax. The court agreed with the interpretation of section 216 provided in the aforementioned case, emphasizing the discretionary nature of interest levy in such cases.

Furthermore, the court referenced the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., where it was held that the justification for the estimate filed by the assessee should be examined based on the circumstances at the time of filing, without requiring the assessee to predict the future. The court reiterated that if there was a proper basis and justification for the estimate at the time of filing, it cannot be considered an underestimate.

Based on the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, the High Court of Gujarat found that the Tribunal correctly determined that the interest was not leviable in the present case. The court noted that the sales for the year were significantly lower than the previous year, and the assessee had material to support an even lower estimate than what was provided. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had estimated Rs. 6 lakhs despite having grounds to estimate a lower figure. Therefore, the court held that the interest was not payable as it did not fall within the purview of section 216 of the Income-tax Act. The court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, disposing of the reference accordingly with no order as to costs.