R. L. SAGNANI, J. M. assessee is company carrying on business of export. In accounting year relevant to asst. yr. 1977-78, assessee received interest of Rs. 56,972 from government under s. 214 of IT Act, 1961. assessee credited this amount in P & L A/c and treated this amount as part of business income of relevant years. ITO treated this amount as income from other sources. In appeal CIT (A) directed ITO to treat this amount as business income. Department has now come in appeal before us and contention is that said amount should be treated as income from other sources. In support of contention that said income was income from other sources, ld. departmental representative has relied on decision of Madras High Court in Smt. B. Seshamma vs. CIT (1979) 10 CTR (Mad) 163: (1979) 119 ITR 314 (Mad). On other hand, ld. counsel for assessee h d relied on decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in R. B. Jodhamal Kuthiala vs CIT (1972) 83 ITR 464 (P & H) and decision of Supreme Court in Donald Miranda & Ors. vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 166 (SC). CIT (A) has also relied on these two decisions. We have considered rival submission. We find that decision of Madras High Court in case of Smt. B. Seshamma (supra) is direct authority on point that interest received under s. 214 is taxable under head "Income from o th e r sources" and not under head profits and gains of business or profession. ld. counsel for assessee contended that said decision should not be regarded as authority for proposition that head of income under which interest under s. 214 should be brought is "income from other sources" but should be regarded as authority only for limit proposition that interest received under s. 214 is taxable income. We do not agree with this contention. It is true that High Court in said case first considered question whether amount represented chargeable income. However, in order to decide whether it was taxable income it had also to decide under what head it fell in decision was that it was income from other sources and not business income. This is what Court observed: "The interest paid (by Government) under s. 214 being statutory obligation with respect to amount found refundable, we have to hold that though it may not be income arising from activity, business or investment, it would come under head "other sources". interest is not paid as personal compensation but it is paid for deprivation of use of money". From this observation it is clear that what has been held in said case is that receipt of interest does not arise out of activity concerning business or investment; it arises out of deprivation suffered by assessee of use of money and as such amount represents income from "other sources" and not business income. As regards nature of payment of advance tax and nature of refund, observations of High Court in said case are instructive. It is stated therein that advance income-tax is paid in respect of income chargeable to tax and as such liability to pay advance income-tax is with reference to income chargeable to tax. excess amount found refundable on assessment cannot be said to be paid as tax or collected as tax it may be paid to be paid or collected by way of tax. Hence, when in assessment, it is found that excess amount is not referable to any income chargeable to tax, said excess amount could not be said to be tax paid and its refund could not be said to be remission or rebate in tax. In these circumstances, interest paid on excess refunded has no connection with business and receipt is not business receipt. It is pertinent to note that income-tax is not admissible deduction in computation of profits and gains of business. Hence, when interest is received on refund of excess of income tax paid, same cannot be treated as business receipt. decisions on which ld. counsel for assessee had relied are distinguishable. In case of R. B. Jodhamal (supra) Punjab and Haryana High Court held that interest on refundable excess profits tax was income from business. There is material difference in nature of excess profits tax liability under (EPT Act, 1940 (Act No. XV of 1940) and income-tax liability under IT Act, 1961. Under s. 4(1) of Act No. XV of 1940, levy was on business, it was laid down therein that "there shall, in respect of any business to which this Act applies, be charged, levied and paid.........a tax". Under IT Act, levy of tax is not in respect of any business but on chargeable income. Secondly, under s. 12 of Act, No. XV of 1940, tax was allowable deduction for computation of profits while income-tax under IT Act, 1961 is not allowable deduction. In these circumstances, payment of excess profits tax constituted business expenses, with result that when excess was refunded with interest, whole amount was business receipt. In case of income-tax under Act of 1961, refund of excess does not constitute business receipt and as such interest imbedded in refund also would not constitute business receipt. As already stated interest represents compensation received for deprivation of use of money which had not been laid out for business purposes. advance income-tax is to be paid by assessee who derives income from sources other than business and receipt of refund of excess amount of tax together with interest would be income in their case also but not necessarily referable to those sources. In same way receipt of interest under s. 214 in present case would not be referable to business of assessee. other decision viz., case of Donald Miranda (supra) is also in respect of interest on refund of excess profits tax and for reasons already given, said decision would not be applicable. Thus principle laid down in decisions cited by ld. counsel for assessee does not apply to facts of present case. For reasons already given, we hold that interest of Rs. 56,972 received by assessee under s. 214 of IT Act, 1961 was chargeable under head "income from other sources" and not under head "profits and gains of business or profession". We accordingly, set aside order of CIT (A) and restore that of ITO on this point. In result, appeal is allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. AMERSEY EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED