Court rules in favor of assessee on advance tax underestimation for assessment year 1975-76.

The court concluded that the Tribunal had no material to hold that the assessee underestimated the advance tax payable for the assessment year 1975-76. The reference was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal had any material to hold that the assessee underestimated the advance tax payable and thereby reduced the amount payable in instalments for the year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76.

Detailed Analysis:

Background and Procedural History:
In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the primary question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the court is whether the Tribunal had any material to hold that the assessee underestimated the advance tax payable and thereby reduced the amount payable in instalments for the assessment year 1975-76. Initially, a Division Bench of the court heard the reference, but the judges delivered differing opinions. Consequently, the matter was referred to a larger bench.

Facts of the Case:
The Assessing Officer, in an order dated January 24, 1981, under section 216 of the Act, found that the assessee had filed an estimate of advance tax on September 5, 1974, showing Rs. 9,34,500 as payable, and later revised it on March 13, 1975, to Rs. 23,20,500. The officer concluded that the assessee reduced the amount payable in the earlier estimate and levied interest of Rs. 38,433 under section 216 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned this order, but the Tribunal reinstated it, leading to the present reference.

Arguments by Counsel:
- For the Assessee: Mr. R. Goenka argued that the levy of interest under section 216(a) is discretionary and not automatic. He cited precedents to support that mere underestimation of advance tax does not warrant interest unless it is devoid of bona fides. He emphasized that the sales figures up to August 1974 justified the initial estimate and that the significant increase in sales occurred only after December 1974, prompting the revised estimate in March 1975.

- For the Revenue: Dr. A.K. Saraf contended that the court cannot consider whether the Tribunal's order was perverse, as this question was not referred. He argued that the question referred is purely factual and the High Court should not interfere with the Tribunal's findings.

Court's Analysis:
The court noted that determining whether there was any material for the Tribunal's finding is a question of law. The Tribunal's finding was based solely on the sales figures of the assessee for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The sales figures indicated that:
- Up to August 1974, the sales were Rs. 93,82,000, an increase of Rs. 15,82,000 from the previous year.
- Up to December 1974, the sales difference reduced to Rs. 10,20,098.
- By March 1975, the sales difference shot up to Rs. 50,45,000.

The court found that the initial estimate of Rs. 15,00,000 filed on September 5, 1974, was reasonable given the sales figures up to August 1974. The significant increase in sales occurred only in the last quarter, justifying the revised estimate in March 1975. Thus, there was no material to support the Tribunal's finding that the assessee deliberately underestimated its advance tax.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal had no material to hold that the assessee underestimated the advance tax payable and thereby reduced the amount payable in instalments for the assessment year 1975-76. The reference was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee.

---