9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vy of interest under s. 139(8) of the Act, is challenged. 2. In the original assessment order dt. 28th Feb., 1976 the ITO arrived at the tax due as Rs. 1,04,790 and after deducting the advance tax paid of Rs. 24,200 the tax payable was shown as Rs. 80,590 and interest under s. 139(8) was calculated at 12 per cent on Rs. 80,520 treating the delay as only one month. Such interest worked out to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le would work out to only Rs. 1,612 and not Rs. 2,096. However, the AAC accepted assessee's contention and cancelled the order under s. 154 of the Act thereby restricting the interest charged under s. 139(8) to Rs. 806. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Department is in appeal. 4. The ld. Deptl. Representative pointed out before us that the audit pointed out the mistakes and according to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order interest under s. 139(8) was calculated for one month's delay whereas actually there was a delay of 2 months. So, there is no question of the ITO not being able to rectify such an arithmetical mistake. Inasmuch as the assessee did not file any reply to the notice for rectification, there is no question of the ITO waiving interest earlier. On the materials placed before us rectific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the realisation was within the financial year that has to be treated as advance tax. No doubt the Department has been canvassing the view that since the advance tax was not realised before 15th Dec., 1974 is should not be treated as advance tax. Whatever the position might be the question whether interest under s. 139(8) would be computed after deducting the advance tax paid or not is a debatable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
