2006 (9) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue contended that (i) Extra shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days on which the concern worked (ii) Assessee liable for interest u/s 215 and 217(1A) Held that revenue contention was not correct and allowed appeal of assessee in both cases

Summary

Issues:
1. Double shift allowance on machinery additions
2. Charging of interest under sections 215 and 217(1A) simultaneously

Issue 1: Double shift allowance on machinery additions

The assessee claimed double shift allowance on machinery additions, which the Assessing Officer initially denied. However, the CIT(A) overturned this decision, stating that evidence showed the concern worked double shift throughout the year. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing a benevolent circular and previous court decisions. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that extra shift allowance should only apply to machinery working extra shifts, not the entire concern. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, supporting the calculation of extra shift allowance based on the number of days the concern worked double shift, not individual machinery. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, following the same judgment in Sundaram Spinning Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issue 2: Charging of interest under sections 215 and 217(1A) simultaneously

The assessing officer charged interest under both sections 215 and 217(1A) of the Income Tax Act, which the CIT(A) disapproved, citing Board's instructions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view. The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 215 and 271(1A) of the Act, highlighting that each operates in specific situations. Liability under section 215 arises when advance tax paid is less than 75% of the assessed tax, while under section 217(1A) arises for not sending estimates. The Court supported the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Act's scheme and Board's instructions. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Tribunal's view aligned with the Act and Board's instructions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of double shift allowance on machinery additions and the charging of interest under sections 215 and 217(1A) simultaneously, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes in each case.