9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the obligation to submit an estimate of current income. Assessment of a new assessee and applicability of interest under section 217 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. Determination of previous assessment status and its impact on the obligation to file advance tax estimate. Analysis: The case involved a question regarding the applicability of interest under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee had previously been assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family ("HUF") until the partition took place on the last day of the relevant accounting year. Subsequently, the assessment was completed in the status of an individual. The Income-tax Officer charged interest under section 217, considering the assessee as a new assessee under section 212(3) and obligated to deposit advance tax based on own estimate. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the appeal, stating that the assessee was an old assessee assessed in his individual capacity in the assessment year 1970-71. The matter was taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where it was held that the provisions of section 217 apply only when an assessee falls within the scope of section 212(3) based on previous assessments. The Tribunal determined that since the assessee was assessed as an individual until 1970-71 and then as an HUF until 1975-76, the subsequent assessments in the individual capacity did not require an advance tax estimate under section 212(3). The Revenue contended that assessments made in the individual capacity should be considered as those of the HUF, but this argument was rejected. The court analyzed the provisions of section 212(3) and emphasized that the obligation to submit an estimate of current income applies to those not previously assessed in a regular assessment. The court noted that assessments up to 1970-71 were in the individual capacity, and even if wrongly mentioned as such, they could not be considered as those of the HUF. The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in determining that no interest under section 217 was chargeable for the assessment years in question. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.
|
