9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act." 2. The relevant fact may be briefly indicated. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1991-92 on 27-10-1993 declaring total income of Rs.18,14,720. The assessee had paid following amounts by way of taxes for assessment year 1992-93 after the end of the accounting year i.e. after 31st March, 1992. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount (in Rs.) Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,00,000 24-4-1992 2,00,000 30-10-1992 3,00,000 &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .9,50,000 paid before filing of the return. The CIT(A) accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The revenue is aggrieved and hence the appeal. 3. The learned DR, assailing the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) argued that the Assessing Officer had correctly computed the interest under section 234A for late furnishing of return by the assessee and payment of Rs.9,50,000 made by the assessce after the end of the accounting year ie. 31 st March, 1992 cannot be treated as advance-tax and has therefore been ignored by the Assessing Officer while calculating the interest under section 234A. The learned DR submitted that the provisions of section 234A are unambiguous and provide that interest would be charged on the amount of tax on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the assessee by way of rectification of application before the Assessing Officer was well outside the pale of the restricted purview of section 154. The order of the Assessing Officer rejecting the rectification application is therefore liable to be sustained. On this ground itself, we are inclined to accept the appeal of the assessee and reverse the order of the CIT(A). 6. Even on merits, as we have briefly referred above, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind regarding the interpretation of the provisions of section 234A for computation of interest for late filing of the return. The section speaks of two factors which are to be determined namely quantum of delay in furnishing the return and the amount on which interest is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of processing under section 143(1)(a) when the Assessing Officer is not entitled to deal with the controversial issues. The Tribunal has taken note of this important aspect while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Another important distinguishing feature which has to be taken note of is the retrospective amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 in the provisions relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B as well as section 140A. Explanation 4 below sub-section (1) of section 234A(1) has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1-4-1989. Similarly, in section 140A, the Legislature has inserted Explanation (1A) w.e.f. 1-4-1989 which provides that interest payable under section 234(A) shall be computed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and any tax payment made after the end of the accounting year would be liable to be ignored while computing the interest. Another argument vehemently put across by the learned counsel for the assessee was that ignoring the payments of taxes made by the assessee after the end of the accounting year would lead to injustice inasmuch as interest under section 234A would be levied even on the tax amounts already paid by the assessee. The learned counsel strongly urged that this approach would be contrary to the compensatory nature of the provisions contained under section 234A. We are not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel. When the words of statute are clear, plain or unambiguous ie. they are reasonably susceptible to only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served, repelling a similar contention based on hardship involved in section 234A, that in actual application of these provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C, there may be situations where an assessee may render itself liable to payment of interest under each of these provisions simultaneously for the time period but this would not alter the basic character of the levy being compensatory. Thus, the supposed hardships or inequitable consequences claimed by the learned counsel would not empower an appellate authority to modify or rewrite the statutory provision. The contentions of the learned counsel on this ground are, therefore, without merit and are rejected. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we hereby reverse the findings of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
