9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was chargeable based on the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Summary: The Revenue filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, challenging the Tribunal's decision not to refer the question of charging interest under section 216 for the court's opinion. The Income-tax Officer had directed charging interest under sections 215 and 216 without specifically finding that the assessee had underestimated the advance tax payable. The assessee contended that there was no justification for charging interest as the estimate of advance tax was based on estimated profits. The Commissioner and Tribunal both considered the issue, with the Tribunal ultimately directing the deletion of interest levied under section 216. The Revenue sought a reference to the court, which was declined by the Tribunal due to a lack of a specific finding regarding the levy of interest under section 216. Section 216 of the Income-tax Act provides for the levy of interest if the Income-tax Officer finds that the assessee has underestimated the advance tax payable. The discretion to levy interest under section 216 is subject to the condition of such a finding being recorded by the Income-tax Officer. The section mandates a judicial exercise of discretion backed by reasons, unlike sections 215 and 217 where interest levy is mandatory under certain conditions. The appellate authority's ability to determine the correctness of interest levied under section 216 hinges on the Income-tax Officer's finding of underestimation, which must be deliberate or intentional, indicating lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. Without a finding of underestimation, the levy of interest under section 216 is not warranted. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to decline the reference question was upheld, emphasizing the necessity of a specific finding by the Income-tax Officer to justify interest under section 216. In conclusion, the court rejected the Revenue's application and discharged the rule, with no order as to costs.
|
