1984 (7) TMI 199 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to Commissioner (A)'s order allowing the assessee's appeal against the ITO's order under s. 154
- Interpretation of provisions of s. 209A regarding filing of advance tax statement or estimate
- Application of s. 154 for rectification of mistake apparent on the record

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Department contested the Commissioner (A)'s decision favoring the assessee's appeal against the ITO's order under s. 154, which refused to reduce the interest imposed under s. 139(8). The dispute arose from the assessee's failure to file a statement of advance tax in Form 28A as required by s. 209A for the assessment year 1980-81. Instead, the assessee submitted an estimate in Form 29, revising it later. The ITO disregarded the advance tax payments made by the assessee, leading to the imposition of interest. The Commissioner (A) ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that filing an estimate under s. 209A(4) sufficed to fulfill the obligation under s. 209A(1)(a), contrary to the ITO's stance.

2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of s. 209A provisions. The Commissioner (A) highlighted that the filing of an estimate under s. 209A(4) could substitute the requirement of submitting a statement under s. 209A(1)(a). This interpretation was pivotal in the Commissioner (A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal under s. 154. The Department contended that rectification under s. 154 was unwarranted, asserting a lack of apparent mistake on record. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the assessee's actions aligned with the provisions of s. 209A, warranting rectification of the ITO's treatment of advance payments as ad hoc, thereby upholding the Commissioner (A)'s ruling.

3. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the clarity of s. 209A, particularly s. 209A(4), which mandated only an estimate of current income for certain assessees liable to pay advance tax. By filing the income estimate under s. 209A(4) and making corresponding advance tax payments, the assessee fulfilled the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s decision and underscoring the necessity for the ITO to recognize the advance tax payments as valid, in line with the provisions of s. 209A.