9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st Mar., 1972, a portion was not advance tax. the ITO did not consider a portion to be advance tax because according to him certain instalments were paid after the due dates. The position of payments etc., is as under: "Original demand was of Rs. 14,905 under s. 210 of the I.T. Act. The assessee paid 1/3 rd i.e. first instalment on 13th Sept., 1971 of Rs. 4,968. This was before 15th Sep., 1971 and was before due date. On 14th Dec., 1971 the assessee paid the second instalments of Rs. 4,968. This was again before the due date of the second instalment on 15th Dec., 1971. Aggregate payment made before the due date of the first and second instalments was Rs. 9,936 The assessee then filed an estimate according to which the advance tax pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the delay in encashing the cheque occurred in the IT Office and in any event there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified. 6. The provisions of s. 214(1) read as under: "The Central Government shall pay simple interest at twelve percent per annum on the amount by which the aggregate sum of any instalments of advance-tax paid during any financial year in which they are payable under ss. 207 to 213 exceeds the amount of the tax determined on regular assessment from the 1st day of April, next following the said financial year to the date of the regular assessment for the assessment year immediately following the said financial year, and where any such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Departmental Representative and it is not necessary for me to decide whether the levy of interest under s. 214 is part of assessment order or not. Under the provisions of s. 154(1)(a) the jurisdiction to rectify the mistake is vested in the ITO is not confined to rectify mistakes in assessment orders but extends to mistakes in any order passed by him. It cannot even be the case of the Department that interest under s. 214 was granted without any order being passed by the ITO s. 246 provides for an appeal against an order under s. 154 to the AAC. In the resent case, the appeal is against an order under s. 154 and is, therefore, competent. The appeal is not against payment of interest under s. 214. 8. It is, therefore, not neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
