Decided on August 31,1994



J. Kathuria, Accountant Member - (1.) THESE two appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue - pertain to assessment year 1980-81 and are disposed of by a combined order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) We shall first take up the assessee's appeal (I.T.A.No. 754/Chd/1989). The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of liquor and Beer. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1980-81 on 8-8-1980 declaring total income of Rs. 18,29,770. In fact, the income from business for assessment year 1980-81 was of the order of Rs. 37,00,766 and after adjusting deficiency under Section 80J, deduction under sections 80W and 80G, total income was returned at Rs. 18,29,770. Assessment was completed on 28-2-1983 by the Assessing Officer on total income of Rs. 38,32,810 and the tax liability was determined at Rs. 22,66,148. The Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 215 at Rs. 4,24,573 which was later on reduced under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 to Rs. 2,08,406. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 stating therein that it was under no obligation to file an estimate of advance-tax and as such there was no justification for charging interest under Section 215. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the estimate of advance-tax at Form No. 29 filed by the assessee on 12-6-1979 on total income of Rs. 19,20,000 and a revised estimate of advance-tax filed on 14-12-1979 on total income of Rs. 13,95,000 were not mere scraps of paper and as such could not be ignored. He further held that whether an estimate of advance-tax filed despite the assessee's obligation to file it, can be acted upon for purposes of levying interest under Section 215 was a debatable issue. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of T.S. Balararn v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, he rejected the assessee's application under Section 154.
(3.) THE assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who appreciated the hardship caused to the assessee but observed that such hardship was of the assessee's own seeking because it had filed an estimate of advance-tax when it was under no obligation to file such estimate. He further observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Patel Aluminium (P.) Ltd. v. Miss KM. Tawadia [1987] 165 ITR 99 did not apply to the facts of the assessee's case because in that case, the petitioner had not filed a statement nor did it pay advance-tax for the relevant assessment year. THE learned CIT(A) further noted that the assessee filed application under Section 154 only when its appeal before the Tribunal was rejected vide order dated 20-7-1987 and the rectification application was filed only to retrieve the situation. THE learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that after the rejection of the claim of the assessee by the Tribunal, provisions of Section 154 were not applicable. He accordingly dismissed the assessee's appeal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.