1979 (11) TMI 79 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of levy of interest u/s 216 for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
2. Justification of levy of interest u/s 216 for assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of levy of interest u/s 216 for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69

The Tribunal held that the levy of interest u/s 216 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 was not justified. The assessee, a public limited company, filed estimates of its income and advance tax payable in May 1966 and May 1967, respectively. The income disclosed was Rs. 22,00,000 and Rs. 10,00,000, with advance tax payable of Rs. 11,42,000 and Rs. 5,50,000. Revised estimates were filed in February 1967 and February 1968, showing higher incomes, and the shortfall in advance tax was paid in the last installment. The ITO charged interest u/s 216, but the AAC found that the estimates were based on actual accounts up to April each year and justified for the first two installments. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals, maintaining that interest could not be charged for the first two installments as the estimates were bona fide and based on actual accounts.

Issue 2: Justification of levy of interest u/s 216 for assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71

For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal also held that the levy of interest u/s 216 was not justified. The assessee filed an estimate in May 1968 showing nil income, revised it in November 1968 to Rs. 12,00,000, and again in February 1969 to Rs. 23,50,000, paying the shortfall in the last installment. For 1970-71, the initial estimate in May 1969 was Rs. 21,00,000, revised in February 1970 to Rs. 33,00,000. The ITO charged interest u/s 216, but the AAC found the estimates justified for the first two installments. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the interest for all three installments. The Tribunal concluded that the estimates were bona fide and based on actual accounts, and the amendment to s. 216, effective from 1st April 1970, meant interest could not be charged for the third installment.

Conclusion:

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the charging of interest u/s 216 is discretionary and not automatic. The ITO must examine whether the estimate filed by the assessee was an underestimate. The court answered the questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, awarding costs to the assessee.