1982 (8) TMI 84 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of interest levied under section 215 by the CIT (A).
2. Interpretation of "assessed tax" under section 215 for determining interest liability.
3. Applicability of appellate authority's determination of income for calculating interest liability.

Analysis:

The appeal before the ITAT Bombay-B related to the assessment year 1976-77, where the only ground taken was the confirmation of interest levied under section 215 by the CIT (A). The ITO had issued a notice for advance tax, and the assessee made payments based on estimates. The ITO computed the total income and tax liability, leading to a shortfall and subsequent interest levied. The CIT (A) rejected the assessee's contention that interest should be based on the tax as finally determined by the appellate authority. The ITAT considered whether the advance tax paid by the assessee was less than 75% of the assessed tax based on the original assessment or the appellate order's corrected income determination.

The ITAT analyzed the provisions of section 215, which levies interest when advance tax paid is less than 75% of the assessed tax. The term "assessed tax" was crucial, defined as tax determined on the basis of regular assessment under sections 143 or 144. Referring to a ruling by the Calcutta High Court, it was established that an order giving effect to the appellate authority's decision is considered a regular assessment. The ITAT emphasized that the correct income determined by the appellate authority should be used for all purposes, including interest calculations, rather than the ITO's original assessment.

The ITAT rejected the argument that accepting the assessee's contention would render subsection (3) of section 215 redundant. It clarified that interest liability should be based on the corrected income determined by the appellate authority, ensuring fairness and consistency. By following the Calcutta High Court's ruling and considering the legislative intent, the ITAT concluded that interest under section 215 cannot be upheld if the advance tax paid is not less than 75% of the tax assessed based on the appellate or revisional authority's order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.