1985 (5) TMI 78 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of unabsorbed deficiency brought forward from earlier assessment years.
2. Charge of interest under section 217.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the determination of unabsorbed deficiency brought forward from earlier assessment years by the assessee-company for the assessment year 1980-81. The primary contention was that the deficiency was wrongly determined at Rs. 12,974 instead of Rs. 92,228. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Century Enka Ltd. vs. ITO and argued that the assessment should not have been made based on the lower deficiency amount. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. overruled the Calcutta High Court's judgment and upheld the validity of relevant IT rules and amendments. The tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grievance as the deficiency had been considered in previous assessments, and no valid grievance could be raised in the current appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the charge of interest under section 217 amounting to Rs. 15,420. The assessee argued that the interest was levied due to failure to submit a voluntary estimate of advance tax as required by section 209A. The contention was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and judicial decisions, asserting that the liability for advance tax estimate did not exist at the time it was due, considering the retrospective amendments and judicial pronouncements. The departmental representative opposed the appeal, citing precedents from various High Courts that disallowed appeals against interest charges under section 217. However, the tribunal considered the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which established that an appeal lies when there is a total denial of liability to the charge of interest. In this case, where the deficiency brought forward exceeded the current year's income based on previous judgments, the tribunal concluded that the charge of interest was unjustified and canceled it. The appeal was partly allowed based on this analysis.