9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference are stated hereafter : The assessee-company was taken over by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. For the period relating to the assessment year 1982-83 (the relevant accounting period being the year ending on March 31, 1982), the assessee filed a statement of advance tax under section 209A(1)(a) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), declaring its income as nil, in view of the fact that the last regular completed assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 was computed as nil as the assessee was suffering a loss and in view of the further fact that, for the later assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82, the assessee's total income as returned was also nil and there was no payment under section 140A of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erim orders and further, in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court challenging section 80J(1A) of the Act, the assessee, on the basis of the old provision before the amendment, submitted its return of income after setting off the deficiencies of the earlier years available under section 80J(3) of the Act and hence after setting off such deficiencies, the income became nil. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, subsequently passed an order under section 263 revising the order of the Income-tax Officer passed under section 154 and held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 216 as, according to him, the statement which was filed in terms of section 209A(1)(a) amounted to an esti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, underestimated the advance tax payable by him and thereby reduced the amount payable in either of the first two instalments ; or (b) Under section 213 of the Act, wrongly deferred the payment of advance tax on a part of his income. Condition (b) has no application in this case. In the present case also no estimate has been filed under section 212 of the Act as, admittedly, no order under section 210 of the Act had been made by the Income-tax Officer. Unless an order under section 210 of the Act is made by the Income-tax Officer, the question of filing an estimate under section 212 of the Act does not arise. The only point for consideration is whether, when the assessee has filed a statement under section 209A(1)(a) of the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come at Rs. 4 crores and paid advance tax of Rs. 2,25,50,000. The statement which is made under section 209A(1)(a) of the Act is different from the estimate which is required to be submitted under section 209A(4) or under the various other provisions of the Act. The Legislature has made a distinction between a statement which is required to be filed under section 209A(1)(a) and the estimate which is to be filed either under section 209A(4) or under the various other provisions of the Act. The interest under section 216 of the Act is attracted only in a case where an estimate is filed in respect of the first two instalments and such estimate is subsequently found to be an underestimate in comparison with the subsequent estimate which is fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) and an estimate which may be filed in lieu of such statement referred to in section 209A(2) of the Act. Similarly, section 218(1)(a) makes a specific distinction between a statement required to be filed under section 209A(1) and an estimate filed under section 209A of the Act. Such distinction also is to be found in section 273 of the Act. Section 273(1) gives power to the Income-tax Officer to levy penalty when no statement under section 209A(1)(a) of the Act is filed or such statement is untrue. Section 273(2) of the Act deals with imposition of penalty in a case where the estimate of advance tax is not filed or such estimate is found to be wrong or untrue under section 209A of the Act. It is, therefore, evident that the Legislature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot and does not arise and the provisions of section 216 of the Act cannot be attracted in such a case. The court has to interpret a provision according to the plain meaning of the section and cannot read more into the language of a provision than what is warranted by the express provisions of the section. Where the Legislature uses two different words in the same provision, it is not permissible to equate the scope and meaning of the two words which, on their plain language, are different. It is a well-settled rule that, when two interpretations are possible, in other words, where the provision is capable of two alternative meanings, the one favouring the taxpayer is to be adopted, particularly when such a provision purports to impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
