1992 (10) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 217(1A) for charging interest on non-payment of advance tax estimate.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Interpretation of Section 217(1A) for charging interest on non-payment of advance tax estimate.

Facts:
- The Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 217(1A) amounting to Rs. 5,250 during the assessment under Section 143(1).
- The assessee filed the advance tax estimate but did not make the payment as required.
- The assessee filed a petition under Section 154, contending that interest should not be charged as the estimate was furnished.
- The AAC confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, stating that non-payment of advance tax as per the estimate makes the levy of interest mandatory.

Assessee's Argument:
- Assessee's counsel referred to the Commentary of Chaturvedi and Pithisaria, stating that non-payment of tax should not lead to interest under Section 217(1A).
- Cited a Tribunal decision where interest under Section 217(1A) was not charged under similar circumstances.

Departmental Representative's Argument:
- Submitted that various High Court decisions emphasize the requirement of both filing the estimate and payment of tax.
- Referred to specific High Court decisions and legal commentaries supporting the view that payment of tax is necessary along with the estimate.

Judgment:
- The Tribunal found that while one view suggests payment of tax is necessary along with the estimate, another view allows for proceeding under different sections for non-payment.
- Rejected the assessee's plea under Section 154 based on conflicting interpretations and multiple possible views.
- Referred to High Court decisions emphasizing the payment of tax along with the estimate for charging interest under Section 217(1A).
- Concluded that two possible views exist on the issue, justifying the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the petition and confirming the dismissal of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, highlighting the conflicting interpretations regarding the necessity of payment of tax along with the advance tax estimate under Section 217(1A). The judgment underscores the presence of multiple views on the issue and the justifiability of the Assessing Officer's decision based on the available legal perspectives.