Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (11) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h. Pradeep Dinodia submitted that, the assessee-company was assessed at a total income of Rs. 83,14,396 on which income, the total tax payable was determined at Rs. 53,58,474. The assessing officer while calculating interest under section 215, took into consideration the tax paid under section 140A of the Act at Rs. 16,49,677 on 29-7-1980 and levied the interest for the period 1-4-1980 to 30-6-1980 and again from 1-8-1980 to 30-6-1982, as the assessment stood concluded on 2-7-1982. The assessing officer subsequently invoked section 154 of the Act because he felt that he had calculated the interest wrongly and passed an order dt.27-9-1985, in which order he had calculated irterest u/s. 215 for the period from1-4-1980to29-7-1980and from30-7-1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, since the tax was paid on29th July 1980, and 29 days being a fraction of the month of July as it has 31 days, for calculating the interest, the 29 days of July must be excluded. There being some tax amount still remaining, which is Rs. 7,08,797, interest at 12% would have to be charged from 30th July 1980 to 2-7-1982, but while doing so, the 2 days of July 1980 and 2 days of July 1982 would have to be excluded because they form a fraction of the month of July in the respective years. He accordingly pleaded that, the assessing officer initially had correctly charged the interest for the period from1-4-1980to30-6-1980, excluding the 29 days of July 1980 and from1-8-1980to30-6-1982, excluding 2 days each of July 1980 and July 1982. 3. Smt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the date on which the tax is so paid and thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax as so paid (insofar as it relates to income subject to advance tax) falls short of the assessed tax ". The contention of the assessee is that, since it had paid tax u/s 140A on 29-7-1980, and the interest is to be calculated up to 29-7-1980, which happens to be a fraction of the month, interest shall have to be calculated up to 30-6-1980 and for the balance tax, since it contains fractions of two months, excluding both these fractions, interest should be calculated from 1-8-80 to 30-6-1982. The contention of the department is that, the emphasis being on the words till the date of such payment, interest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons, i.e., 2 days short in July 1980 and only 2 days of July 1982, which fractions of the months, as per the rule would have to be ignored for rounding off to whole months and on this basis, the period so rounded off for which interest shall be chargeable would be 1-8-1980 to 30-6-1982. If we accept the proposition advanced by the CIT(A), which is that the period shall be running up to2-7-1982and the fraction that needs to be ignored would be 2 days of the month of July 1982, it would be contrary to the rule of charging of the interest. This can be elaborated by an example. The first cut-off point is with relevance to the date on which tax was paid under section 140A, then, in a case, where, there remains no further tax payable after the pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted by the departmental representative Smt. Bhattacharya that, misreading of law thereby mistake is committed in the calculation would be mistake apparent from the record but the primary aspect that needs to be established is that, there was misreading of the law. In the instant case, there did not occur any misreading of the law at the time of the original assessment. We may also point out that, there is considerable distinction between misreading and misinterpreting the law and for misinterpretation of law, section 154 cannot be invoked. The other case law of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. would squarely apply because, the issue in the present appeal, whether there was a mistake apparent from the record and invoking of the pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates