assessee, private limited company, has challenged levy of interest in sum of Rs. 85,110 under section 217 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ') Some antecedent facts have to be noticed first. 2. assessee-company has been regular assessee for past many years. accounting year followed is financial year. Assessment was completed for this year on 27-3-1982 on total income of Rs. 6,58,140. As part of this order, ITO had directed as under: " Charge interest under sections 139(8) and 217." 3. On receipt of copy of assessment order, assessee wrote to ITO, on 8-4-1982, as under: " While calculating tax on assessed income, sum of Rs. 85,110 has been charged towards interest under section 217. This action is patently incorrect and such provisions are not applicable to company as no notice under section 210 was issued by department and, accordingly, assessee-company was not obliged to file any statement of income under section 209A or any estimate in respect thereof, which may kindly be rectified and revised order and challan to this effect be issued. This will also affect interest charged under section 139(8)." Evidently, there was no response from ITO. Meanwhile, assessee filed appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), contesting assessment itself. One of objections taken there was to levy of said interest under section 217. Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of this particular objection as under: " 2. second ground is against charging of interest under section 217. This interest has been charged in routine manner without taking into account objections raised by appellant in this regard. It is submitted that charge of interest is legally incorrect since this interest can be charged only if there is failure to comply with provisions of section 209A. In this connection, no notice under section 210 was issued by ITO, while latest assessment was completed on loss and, therefore, no estimate was called for under section 209A. As mentioned above, this objection was raised before ITO on which he has not given any finding. I, therefore, deem it fair to restore this point to file of ITO and he is directed to charge interest under section 217, if any, after taking into consideration objections raised by appellant." 4. After Commissioner (Appeals)' order, dated 31-12-1982, was received, ITO took up for consideration assessee's petition, dated 8-4- 1982, supra. He also took note of Commissioner (Appeals)' directions in his order of 31-12-1982 supra. He then passed order under section 154 of Act on 9-6-1983. In this order, he held as follows: " I have also considered point No. (ii) above, regarding chargeability of interest under section 217 in view of petition under section 154 along with directions of Commissioner (Appeals) and it is found that vide Finance Act, 1978, section 24, with effect from 1-6-1978, which amended whole structure of advance tax and in view of these amendments, every assessee is bound to file statement or estimate of advance tax before due date(s) without waiting for notice under section 210 to be issued by department. As assessee-company has neither filed statement nor estimate, interest charged under section 217 is correct and petition on this point is, therefore, rejected." assessee appealed against this order under section 154. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of appeal by order, dated 24-4-1984. He rejected assessee's objections to levy of said interest under section 217 for following reasons briefly: (i) assessment order was passed in this case for assessment year 1975-76 on 7-12-1976. This was on total income of Rs. 3,73,663. Assessment for year 1976-77 was completed on 25-1-1977. This was on loss of Rs. 5,91,110. Assessments for years 1977-78 and 1978-79 had not been completed till after end of previous year for assessment year in appeal here. (ii) There was no merit in assessee's claim that since assessment for latest previous year, i.e., 1976-77, has been framed on loss, there was no liability on part of assessee to send any statement or estimate under section 209A of Act. That section had to be read with other relevant sections, e.g., section 207 to section 219 of Act. (iii) words ' income ' and ' total income ' used in section 209 and section 208 cannot mean ' loss '. These sections related to payment of advance tax and, hence, could not have dealt with loss cases. (iv) Similarly, words ' amount of advance tax payable by assessee in financial year ' used in section 209(1) have to be read with section 209(1)(a)(i), where phrase ' his total income of latest previous year in respect of which he has been assessed by way of regular assessment ', has been used. This phrase again would not refer to ' loss '. phrase refers only to figure of positive income, if any, determined for any earlier previous year that happens to be latest previous year of positive income. latest previous year does not refer to last assessed year but last assessed year in which positive income has been assessed. (v) above reading of sections 209 and 209A makes for harmonious n d meaningful result. Under such interpretation, assessee has obligation to file statement in accordance with section 209A. Such obligation would be on basis of positive income last assessed. He has option otherwise to file estimate in accordance with section 209A(2) or section 209A(3). Accordingly, appellant should have paid advance tax on basis of income assessed for assessment year 1975-76 or under section 209A(2) or (3) or (4). (vi) On other hand, if words ' income ' or ' total income ' found in sections 207, 208 and 209 are to be read as including ' loss ', as determined in latest previous year on regular basis, it would mean that words ' if his current income is likely to exceed amount specified in sub-section (2) of section 208 ' are redundant. Moreover, assessee always has option to revise estimate and pay less tax, as noted above, or not to pay any tax if current income is estimated to be loss. (vii) In instant case, current income, as it came to be reflected in return for this assessment year 1979-80, was Rs. 3,82,784. Solely because of facts that last completed assessment was on loss, assessee did n o t pay advance tax. This was not permissible under section 209A. If that section was read correctly as outlined above, assessee would have been obliged to pay advance tax amounting to more than Rs. 2 lakhs. Interest was, therefore, rightly levied. assessee is in further appeal. 6. relevant provisions are as follows: " 208. (1) Advance tax shall be payable during financial year--- (a) where total income, exclusive of capital gains and income referred to in sub-clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2, of assessee, referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 209, exceeds amount specified in sub- section (2), or (b) where it is payable by virtue of provisions of section 209A. (2) amount referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be--- (a) in case of company or local authority Rs. 2,500; " " 209. (1) amount of advance tax payable by assessee in financial year shall, subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), be computed as follows:--- (a)(i) his total income of latest previous year in respect of which he has been assessed by way of regular assessment shall first be ascertained: (iii) income-tax so calculated shall be reduced by amount of income-tax which would be deductible during said financial year in accordance with provisions of sections 192 to 194, section 194A, section 194C, section 194D and section 195 on any income (as computed before allowing any deductions admissible under this Act) on which tax is required to be deducted under said sections and which has been taken into account in computing said total income; (d) in cases where--- (i) total income of latest previous year being year later than previous year referred to in clause (a) on basis of which fax has been paid by assessee under section 140A exceeds total income referred to in clause (a), or" " 209A. (1) Every person shall, in each financial year, on or before date on which first instalment, or where he has not previously been assessed by way of regular assessment under this Act, on or before date on which last instalment, of advance tax is due in his case under sub-section (1) of section 211, if his current income is likely to exceed amount specified in sub-section (2) of section 208 send to Income-tax Officer--- (a) where he has been previously assessed by way of regular assessment under this Act, statement of advance tax payable by him computed in manner laid down in clause (a) or, as case may be, sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 209, or" 7. We have to understand what section 209A lays down. There is no dispute that assessee has been previously assessed by way of regular assessment. This was position before date on which first instalment of advance tax was due in financial year 1978-79, i.e., assessee was old assessee. question is: how was advance tax to be calculated by assessee for being shown in statement to be filed by assessee in terms of section 209A(1)(a). basis of such calculation is laid down in section 209(1)(a)(i)/209(1)(d). Section 209(1)(a)(i) says basis of computation of advance tax is total income of latest previous year in which assessee has been assessed by way of regular assessment. What is meaning of phrase ' total income of latest previous year ' for which there has been regular assessment? ' Total income ' is defined in section 2(45) to mean ' total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in manner laid down in this Act '. Section 5(1) of Act says that subject to provisions of this Act, ' total income ' of any previous year of person who is resident includes all income from whatever source derived. There is also definition of word ' income ' in section 2(24). But this is inclusive definition and clause (i) of this definition refers to ' profits and gains '. Another provision requiring notice is Explanation 2 of section 64(2) of Act, which reads as under: " For purposes of this section, ' income ' includes loss." 8. point for decision is: does term ' total income ' occurring in section 209(1)(a)(i) so operate, as to exclude loss assessment. Shri S.D. Kapila, departmental representative, submits that it does. He referred to decision in case of Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 551 (Guj.). That was under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (' 1922 Act '). dispute was regarding interpretation of section 16(3)(a) of 1922 Act. assessee, Vadera, was non-resident individual. assessment year was 1958-59. He had share income from partnership firm, carrying on business in India. income of his wife and his minor son (who were also non-residents) from interest and share in aforesaid firm was being included in assessee's total income under provisions of section 16(3) [corresponding to section 64(1) of 1961 Act]. For assessment year 1958-59, there was loss determined in case of firm. ITO apportioned loss (as firm was registered) amongst partners in order passed in case of firm. Losses apportioned to assessee's wife and minor son were, however, not given set off in assessment of assessee, though such interest income from firm was brought to tax. Court held, that term ' income ' was not defined in section 16(3); income may, in certain cases, include negative income, namely, loss but such construction was not favoured by section 16(3). section created artificial liability. Hence, section had to be read as carrying concept of adding rather than subtracting, deducting or setting off. This decision was relied on for revenue to contend before us that concept of income cannot include loss. On other hand, Shri R.K. Relhan, authorised representative of assessee, relied on decision of Mysore authorised representative of assessee, relied on decision of Mysore High Court in Dr. T.P. Kapadia v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 511. That was also case under 1922 Act, involving interpretation of section 16(3). Court held here that share of loss of wife in registered firm, in which husband- assessee was also partner, can be set off against income of assessee, while computing his total income. It noticed decision of Gujarat High Court in Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera's case, but did not follow it. In fact, it referred to circular of Central Board of Revenue (Circular No. 20 of 1944) to effect that " equally tenable view was that such loss should be treated as if it were loss sustained by assessee in whose total income share of profit of loss from partnership firm would be includible ". Thus, there were two views as regards meaning of term ' income ' occurring in section 16(3)(a). One view was that term ' income ' included loss also. other view was that it did not. Legislature, however, has made statutory position quite clear by insertion of Explanation 2, with effect from 1-4-1980, in section 64. 9. There being two views possible, we were inclined to prefer broader construction put on word ' income ' by Mysore High Court in Dr. T.P. Kapadia's case, i.e., word ' income ' includes concept of loss also. 10. But then (Shri Kapila submits) matter does not stand concluded against revenue merely on authority of Mysore High Court in Dr. T.P. Kapadia's case. As is made clear in Explanation 2 of section 64 itself, it is only for specific purpose of section 64 that concept of income has been broadened to include loss also but not for any other purpose. Shri Kapila points out further that there is separate set of rules of computation for loss returned. There are other points of distinction as well. In fact under charging section, revenue cannot compel filing of loss return. It is for assessee to file loss return in terms of section 139(3) of Act. Even after such return is filed, cluster of provisions from sections 71 to 79 of Act deal with treatment of losses specifically, either for set off or for carry forward. Attention is also invited to section 80 of Act, which says that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of return filed under section 139, shall be carried forward and set off as laid down in Act. On other hand, Act bristles with sanctions for compelling filing of income returns. thesis is: loss is clearly distinguished as regards assessment from income and only as regards one explicit exception, concept of income has been made to include loss also, i.e., section 64, but for no other purpose. 11. Shri Kapila then goes on to legislative intent behind provisions relating to advance tax. He submits that central idea of these provisions is to collect tax as and when income is earned. This is essential step for protection of revenue and that is why Legislature has fixed base as total income of last completed assessment. To say that if last completed assessment is on loss, no advance tax need be paid, even if current income is as high as Rs. 3,82,784 (this was income returned by assessee on 10-3-1980 for this year), would be to render entire scheme of advance collection of tax unworkable. submission is that statutory language should not be so construed as to make any part of statute meaningless or ineffective. In reply, Shri Relhan submits that prior to introduction of section 209A, old assessee was entitled to receive notice under section 210 from ITO on basis of last completed assessment. (Section 209A was introduced by Finance Act, 1978, with effect from 1-6-1978). Under that old law, if ITO failed to serve notice under section 210 on old assessee for any fiscal year, there was no liability on part of such assessee to pay any advance tax. That was so, even if assessee's income for that year was in lakhs. This did not mean that Legislature had thrown interest of revenue to winds under old dispensation. Legislature, no doubt, introduced section 209A, with effect from 1-6-1978, but that section referred to computation of advance tax in terms of section 209(1). If indeed intention of Legislature had been that every old assessee had to pay advance tax on basis of assessment for latest previous year, resulting in positive income, it would have taken care to exclude loss assessment for ' latest previous year ' specifically. It did not do so. It also did not specifically state that advance tax would have to be paid in terms of income of current year, if that was higher than total income of latest previous year. In other words (according to Shri Relhan), in absence of support of specific statutory language, to accept interpretation suggested by departmental representative based on what his idea of legislative intent was, would be to rewrite statute and not to interpret it. After all legislative intent is best manifest in plain words of statute and is not to be gathered on basis of tortuous subjective reasoning outside four corners of Act. 12. We have considered position. No doubt, there are specific provisions relating to losses. There is also restriction built into section 139 itself for submission of loss returns. Further, Shri Kapila is not wide of mark when he says losses are clearly distinguishable from income, in light of special provisions relating to set off and carry forward of losses as also in view of charging sections compelling filing of returns of income. Quite apart from this, Shri Kapila also based his arguments on what would have been legislative intent. He found it impossible to believe that Legislature would have permitted taxpayer with huge income for current year (as in this case) to go scot-free from paying even rupee of advance tax. To permit such interpretation of relevant provision, was neither equitable nor in accord with commonsense and certainly not good law according to Shri Kapila. We agree that these considerations cannot be lightly brushed aside. But then what appeals to one as what should be law and what law is actually in terms of statute, do not always coincide. That is why Courts have repeatedly laid down that interpretation should not proceed upon subjective ideas of what is correct and what is not correct. Legislative intent is of importance no doubt, but such intent is most manifest in words of statute and it is to these words we will turn, to resolve dispute before us. We have already referred to phrase ' total income ' occurring in section 209(1)(a)(i)/209(1)(d)(i). There is not Much difficulty in understanding term ' latest previous year in which he has been assessed by way of regular assessment ', if that phrase stood by itself. In that event, it would simply mean last completed regular assessment. In case before us, assessment for year 1976-77 was completed on 2-1- 1977 but, according to Shri Kapila, since this assessment resulted in loss of Rs. 5,91,110, we must keep on pushing back into assessment history of assessee until we come to positive income year. Logically, it would mean it does not matter if such first year of positive income is one immediately preceding assessment year 1976-77 or if it is some 20 years earlier. We cannot assert that, that is what is meant or indicated by expression ' total income of latest previous year in respect of which assessee has been assessed by way of regular assessment '. For one thing, such state of affairs may have no relevance at all to position reflected by current year and, hence, such argument is self-defeating. Secondly, ' total income ' as we said before, has been defined in section 2(45). It means, total amount of income referred to in section 5 computed in manner laid down in this Act. computation itself is on schedular basis though assessment is on globular basis. There are different heads of income, each with its own rules of computation. These are enumerated in Chapter IV of Act. These heads of income are " Salaries, Interest on securities, Income from house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, Capital gains and Income from other sources ". Take head of income: ' Income from house property'. If word ' income ' automatically and invariably excludes concept of loss as argued for revenue, then there could be no loss computed at all under charging section as regards income from house property. On other hand, following comment from V.S. Sundaram's Law of Income-tax in India, 11th edn., volume 1, is of some significance: " 20. Net loss on income from house property.---It will be seen from sub-section (2) of section 24 that income of building governed by sub- section (3), viz., house not ' occupied because of residence elsewhere for employment, etc., cannot be negative, i.e., deductions will be limited to annual value as worked out under section 23. value shall be ' nil '. Similarly it is clear, though only by implication, that income under second proviso to sub-section (1) (small tenements) cannot be negative. In other cases, there is nothing to prevent income from being negative, i.e., resulting in net loss that can be set off against other income under section 70 et seq. Hence, where case falls within section 23(2), i.e., where house is in occupation of owner, it is possible to take view that deductions under sub-section (1) can exceed income from house property and convert income into negative figure." We have extracted above passage for purpose of showing that income is not such invariably rigid concept under Act as departmental income is not such invariably rigid concept under Act as departmental representative would have us believe. No doubt, there is specific Explanation enacted in section 64 but it could be argued that amendment was merely clarificatory and that it did not really carve out new area for concept of income; especially so, in view of Board's circular No. 20 of 1944 supra. 13. From above discussion, whatever is clear or not clear, it is evident that interpretation sought to be placed on term ' total income ' by assessee's authorised representative is also reasonable interpretation. It was rightly pointed out for assessee that question of assessee's escaping wholly without paying any advance tax even if current year's income was big one, was not so unique or novel as to excite comment, that under law, as it stood before 1-6-1978, old assessee had no liability to pay advance tax unless he was served with notice under section 210 by ITO. This was so, even if his income for current year was in lakhs. This submission is not without force. No doubt, it is open to Legislature to take away existing privilege. But in doing so, words used must be clear and must not leave room for any other reasonable interpretation. In instant case, we find that both interpretations (as argued for revenue as well as for assessee) are reasonable and in such situation, it is settled law that one beneficial to taxpayer should be preferred. Doing so, we find that there is no case for charge of interest under section 217. interest shall be deleted. 14. No other arguments were raised before us. 15. appeal is allowed. *** TELEVISTA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER