9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. In this connection the IAC(A) brought out the following figures in the order: Date Amount . Rs. 15-6-1980 30,00,000 15-9-1980 1,51,00,000 15-12-1980 1,51,00,000 30-01-1981 4,74,00,000 Total 8,06,00,000 In reply to the show cause notice the assessee furnished a reply on the following lines: "We refer to your above mentioned notice and in reply thereto we have to state as under: The company relying upon profits shown in its books of accounts, estimated its income all the time and made payment of advance-tax accordingly. The company has not under-estimated its income any time while filing estimates in the months of June and Septem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the law correctly it approached to the CIT under s. 209A(4) of the Act requesting for more time for a month to prepare the correct estimate of income and make correct amount of advance tax for the above mentioned assessment year. We are pleased to inform you that the CIT has given us a time for a period of one month to revise our estimate and accordingly we revised, filed our revised estimate in the month of January, 1981 showing total income at Rs. 1,363 lakhs and made further payment of for a sum of Rs. 474 lakhs. In our respectful submission therefore provisions of s. 216 are not applicable to our case as the company relied upon the income shown in the books of accounts and made payments of advance tax accordingly. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the IAC(A) in charging the interest under s. 216. It was further submitted that the CIT(A) had not given any reasons whatsoever for cancelling the levy. It was finally submitted that the order of the IAC(A) be confirmed in preference to the order of the CIT(A). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). At the outset it was submitted that since the CIT(A) had accepted all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and also appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no need to give any detailed reasons. In respect of the merits of the case his arguments proceeded on lines identical to those as before the CIT(A). He in fact referred at length to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the levy of interest was not justified. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Ltd. (1986) 57 CTR (Guj) 304 : (1987) 166 ITR 292 (Guj). He finally made an impassioned plea for the confirmation of the order of the CIT(A). 8. In his reply the learned Departmental Representative submitted that no such finding was required on the part of IAC(A) since the facts of the case itself were so glaring that everything was self explanatory. 9. We have examined the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record to which our attention was drawn by the parties. We have also perused the paper book furnished by the assessee's counsel as also the calculati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage we would like to mention that the assessee at the relevant point of time, viz., assessment year under consideration was a company in which 72.71 per cent of the shares were held by the Govt. of Gujarat, Financial Institutions, Banks, Corporations and Insurance Companies. The other shares were held mainly by Indian companies, and individuals. 1.59 per cent were held by co-operative societies and banks and a very nominal amount, viz., 0.09 per cent were held by non-residents. This would mean that the company was primarily a Govt. owned company. In other words this would entail upon those employees entrusted with the preparation of financial statements as also preparing advance tax estimates a certain amount of responsibility and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
