- (1.) THE following question arising out of ITA No. 1004/Jp/1985 has been referred in an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) that for the purpose of calculation of interest under s. 139(8) the firm is to be treated as registered firm and further holding that the interest under s. 139(8) was not chargeable in this case ?"
(2.) THE assessee has filed return of income on 13th March, 1985 which was obviously over delayed. THE ITO, therefore, treated the assessee as an URF for the purpose of computation of tax and charged interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act as well as initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271 (1)(a) of the IT Act. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee, brought to our notice that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships in the case of Ganesh Dass Sheeram vs. ITO (1987) 66 CTR (SC) 135 : (1988) 169 ITR 221 (SC) : TC 9R.456. In the case of Ganesh Dass (supra), their Lordships of the apex Court have observed as under : "As has been observed earlier, when the amount of tax due had already been paid in the shape of advance tax, the question of payment of compensation by way of interest does not arise and the ITO was not, therefore, justified in charging interest. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to get refund of the amount paid by way of interest for the said assessment year." In the case in hand, tax payable is Rs. 31,064 while the assessee has paid Rs. 32,120 as tax before due date. Therefore, following the view expressed by their Lordships, we uphold the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.;