9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the liability to pay interest on advance tax underestimation. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1982-83, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on the liability of the assessee to pay interest under section 216 of the Act. The assessee, a company taken over by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., filed a statement of advance tax declaring nil income initially but later estimated income at Rs. 4 crores before the last instalment. The assessing authority completed the assessment at Rs. 6,56,77,720, leading to a dispute on interest liability under section 216. The Income-tax Officer, while rectifying mistakes in the assessment order, opined that interest under section 216 was not chargeable as the assessee had filed the necessary forms correctly. However, the Commissioner revised this decision, holding the assessee liable for interest under section 216 due to underestimation in the statement filed under section 209A(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, on appeal, emphasized the legislative distinction between "statement" and "estimate" of advance tax, ruling in favor of the assessee. The High Court delved into the legislative provisions of sections 209, 209A, and 216 of the Act to determine the applicability of interest under section 216. It highlighted that interest is attracted when an assessee underestimates advance tax in the first two instalments or defers payment on part of income. The Court emphasized that in this case, no estimate was filed under section 212, and the statement under section 209A(1)(a) was correctly submitted based on the latest regular assessment showing nil income. The Court elucidated the distinction between a statement and an estimate under the Act, emphasizing that the assessee complied with the statutory requirements by filing a statement of advance tax under section 209A(1)(a) without the need to estimate current income. It noted that the legislative provisions clearly differentiated between a statement and an estimate, as evident from various sections like 217, 218, and 273 of the Act. The Court emphasized that interest under section 216 is attracted only when an estimate is found to be an underestimate compared to subsequent estimates, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that interest under section 216 was not applicable in a scenario where the assessee filed a statement under section 209A(1)(a) without the need to estimate income. The Court stressed the importance of interpreting provisions as per their plain language and opting for interpretations favoring the taxpayer, particularly in cases involving penal interest. The judgment concluded by answering the reference question affirmatively in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
