9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 209A of the Act, the first two instalments were to be paid in accordance with the income of the previous year which the assessee has complied with. So far as the third instalment is concerned, the assessee has paid the advance tax according to the revised estimate and there is no violation of the provisions of section 209A of the Act. – interest not to be charged u/s 216 - 76 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2007 - R. K. AGRAWAL and Ms. BHARATI SAPRU JJ. A. N. Mahajan for the Commissioner. S. D. Singh for the assessee. JUDGMENT 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following three questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry v. Second ITO [1989] 44 Taxman 19 (Bom); (b) CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1990] 181 ITR 493 (Cal); (c) CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. [1990] 184 ITR 339 (Cal). 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the above decisions deleted the disallowance. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. The Assessing Officer further found that the following liabilities were outstanding and not paid by the assessee till the end of the previous year: (a) Purchase tax - Rs. 7,15,038 (b) PF, GPF and administration charges - Rs. 92,442 (c) Electricity charges - Rs.10,862 8. The Assessing Officer disallowed and added back the above amounts by invoking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chargeable. The Revenue being aggrieved brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 10. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal held that in view of the decision of the honourable Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Tube Co. Ltd. [1992] 197 ITR 522, no interest was payable by the assessee. In the light of the above decision, favouring the assessee, the Tribunal in paras 5 and 6 of its order refused to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 11. We have heard Shri A. N. Mahajan learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Shri S. D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 12. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that it is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the assessee complied. It may be mentioned here that the assessee had filed Form No. 28 on June 13, 1985, on the basis of the previous year's income. In the month of December, the assessee filed revised estimate in Form No. 29 on December 9, 1985, and paid the advance tax accordingly on the due date, i.e., December 15, 1985. The estimate filed on December 15, 1985, was further revised on December 16, 1985. On March 14, 1986, the assessee again revised its estimate and deposited the tax payable in accordance with the said estimate prior to the close of the assessment year. The interest has been levied under section 216 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had under estimated the income under section 209A and section 212 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
