JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. N. BHARGAVA J.-This is reference under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as " Act "), by which Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as " Tribunal "), has made reference on following question of law for opinion of this court: " Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was not under obligation to file estimate in terms of section 212(3A) of Income-tax Act, 1961, and was not liable to pay any interest under section 217(1A) of said Act? " assessee, M/s. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd., is private limited company in liquidation. While filing its return of income-tax for assessment year 1971-72, it claimed that it had no income and, accordingly, in Part I of return nil income was shown. But, in Part IV of return, assessee declared income of Rs. 12,94,515 which was claimed to be exempt. Income-tax Officer, however, brought entire income of company in liquidation to assessment and he made note to following effect: " No action under section 273(c) as official liquidator could not have filed estimates under section 212(3A) showing any income in view of his claim in each year that income is not taxable. For 1972-73, he filed nil estimate in reply to notice under section 210. Some action under section 217(l A)." Income-tax Officer had with prior permission of company judge under section 446 of Companies Act, 1956, served on assessee notice under section 210 of Act on February 25, 1971, asking official liquidator for payment of advance tax amounting to Rs. 5,20,722. amount was paid by official liquidator during time granted by High Court assessee did not file estimate under section 212(3A) either on or before March 15, 1971, or even thereafter. Commissioner of Income-tax, on June 18, 1981, issued notice to assessee under section 263 of Act, in following words: " perusal of record reveals that Income-tax Officer, while completing assessment for assessment year 1971-72, failed to charge interest under section 217(1A) which was clearly leviable within meaning of section 212(3A) of Income-tax Act, 1961, and case was not covered by any of exceptions provided in rule 40 of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Thus, Income-tax Officer's order in not charging interest under section 217 is erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue." assessee filed reply to said notice; but, since nobody appeared on behalf of assessee, Commissioner of Income-tax passed impugned order to following effect: " I have considered various contentions raised in written reply. assessee has not indicated that any circumstances exist for waiver of interest in terms of rule 40 of Income-tax Rules, 1962. There is also nothing on record to indicate that at time of making original assessment, Income-tax Officer had taken any conscious decision to waive interest under section 217(1A). assessment is, therefore, clearly prejudicial to interests of Revenue. same is accordingly cancelled and Income-tax Officer is directed to make fresh assessment after applying his mind to question whether interest is chargeable under section 217(1A)." assessee appealed to Tribunal against Commissioner's order under section 263 of Act and same was accepted and order of Commissioner was quashed. Commissioner of Incometax thereafter submitted application under section 256(1) of Act for making reference of above question to High Court. It is in these circumstances that present reference has come up before this court. We have heard learned counsel for Department and learned counsel We have heard learned counsel for Department and learned counsel for assessee. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court in J.K. (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. [1970] 40 Comp Cas 689; AIR 1970 SC 1041, effect of winding-up order is that except for certain preferential payments provided in Act, property of company is to be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu. Pari passu distribution is to be made in satisfaction of liabilities as they exist at commencement of winding-up. official liquidator is to realise and pay to its creditors and, as such, income of company in liquidation cannot be said to be its income for purpose of income-tax and, as such, is not liable to tax. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee was not under bona fide belief that income of assessee was not liable to tax and he was right in showing his income as nil. Learned counsel for assessee has placed reliance on CIT v. N. Khan and Brothers [1973] 92 ITR 338 (All), CIT v. Allied Silk Mills [1983] 140 ITR 428 (Bom), CIT v. Bharat Machinery and Hardware. Mart [1982] 136 ITR 875, (Guj) and CIT v. Ajit Singh Bhagat Singh [1985] 151 ITR 696 (Raj), Division Bench judgment of this court and CIT v. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana [1987] 163 ITR 531 for proposition that assessee cannot be held guilty and was right in not disclosing income of assessee-company, being under liquidation, as income assessable under Act under bona fide belief and, therefore, he was not liable to any interest. We are in agreement with view expressed by this court in earlier two cases cited above. Therefore, question referred to above is answered in affirmative and it is held that assessee was not under obligation to file estimate in terms of section 212(3A) of Act and was not liable to pay any interest under section 217(1A). Additional Registrar is directed to send copy of judgment to Tribunal in accordance with section 260 of Act. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. GOLCHA PROPERTIES (P.) LTD.