INCOME TAX OFFICER v. MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT. LTD
[Citation -1986-LL-0416-2]

Citation 1986-LL-0416-2
Appellant Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Respondent Name MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT. LTD.
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/04/1986
Assessment Year 1978-79
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reserve bank • advance tax • nil income
Bot Summary: A.K. DAS, J.M. By this appeal the Department challanges the order of the CIT under s. 214 of the IT Act. For the assessment year under consideration a notice under s. 210 of the Act was issued by the ITO requiring the assessee to deposit advance-tax of Rs. 4,51,685. The assessee submitted on 15th Sept., 1977 an estimate of income showing nil income and consequently nil tax. The assessee claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent under s. 214 of the Act of amount of advance-tax paid i.e. 17,063 from 1st April, 1978 to 30th Nov., 1980. On the other hand, it has been rightly pointed out by the authorised representative for the assessee that the decision in the case of A. Sethumadhavan vs. CIT, Kerala-II was reversed vide Santha S. Shenoy Ors. Vs. Union of India and others 135 ITR 30 and that in this decision the Andhra Pradesh decision in the case of Knagundi Industrial Works Ltd. Was dissented from. These decisions were actually followed by this decisions were actually followed by this Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst.


A.K. DAS, J.M. By this appeal Department challanges order of CIT (A) under s. 214 of IT Act (herein before referred to as Act). It is opposed by assessee. For assessment year under consideration notice under s. 210 of Act was issued by ITO requiring assessee to deposit advance-tax of Rs. 4,51,685. assessee, however, submitted on 15th Sept., 1977 estimate of income showing nil income and consequently nil tax. However, it revised estimate on 15th March, 1978 showing income of Rs. 25,000 for purpose of advance-tax and Rs. 17,063 as advance tax payable. cheque for amount was tendered along with challan in Reserve Bank of India on 16th March, 1978 and amount was credited by Department on 18th March, 1978. assessment was completed at nil income on 10th Dec., 1980. It was stated in assessment order that advance-tax of Rs. 17,063 deposited was refundable but was adjusted against demand of earlier year. assessee claimed interest at rate of 12 per cent under s. 214 of Act of amount of advance-tax paid i.e. 17,063 from 1st April, 1978 to 30th Nov., 1980. This was not permitted by ITO on ground that amount was paid after last day of payment of advance-tax, i.e. 15th March, 1978. On appeal, CIT (A) allowed assessee's claim on strength of several decisions, namely-- Chandra Kanta Damodar Das vs. ITO, Rajkot (1980) 16 CTR (Guj) 1: (1980) 123 ITR 748 (Guj); CIT vs. Jagannath Narayan Kutumbik Trust (1984) 144 ITR 523 (MP); and Santha S. Shenoy & Ors. vs. Union of India (1982) 29 CTR (Ker) 127: (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker). Being aggrieved Department preferred this appeal. It was contended by t h e departmental representative that assessee is not entitled to interest under s. 214 of Act in view of decision in case of Kangudi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1980) 14 CTR (AP) 328 (1980) 121 ITR 339 (AP) and A. Sethumadhavan vs. CIT Kerala-II & Anr. (1980) 16 CTR (Ker) 376: (1980) 122 ITR 587 (ker). On other hand, it has been rightly pointed out by authorised representative for assessee that decision in case of A. Sethumadhavan vs. CIT, Kerala-II (supra) was reversed vide Santha S. Shenoy & Ors. vs. Union of India and others (1982) 135 ITR 30 (Ker) and that in this decision Andhra Pradesh decision in case of Knagundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. Was dissented from. As has been pointed out by CIT (A) Gujarat and M.P. High Court are also of view as taken by Kerala High Courts. These decisions were actually followed by this decisions were actually followed by this Tribunal in case of assessee for asst. yr. 1981-82 by its order dt. 9th Jan., 1986 in ITA No. 1001(Cal)/1984. So we do not think that CIT (A) was incorrect in this finding. As such this appeal must fail. As result, appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. MACHINO TECHNO (SALES) PVT. LTD.
Report Error