1988 (1) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the interest of Rs. 60,534 charged by the IAC Assessment under s. 216 of the IT Act.". 2. The assessee's accounting year ended on 31st July, 1980 for which the assessment year Was 1981-82. The instalments of Advance Tax were payable by 15th June, 1980, 15th Sept., 1980 and 15th Dec., 1980. On 12th june, 1980 the assessee estimated its income at Rs. 5 laks on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1980) 122 ITR 251 (AP) and CIT vs. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 712 (All). The revenue is aggrieved over this. 4. The Departmental Representative urged that the accounting year of the assessee ended on 31st July, 1980 and the assessee filed the first estimate of Advance tax on 12th June, 1980 i.e. just 1 1/2 months ahead of the close of the accounting year. The assessee itself estimated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the case reported in 122 ITR 251 and 123 ITR 712. 6. We have considered the rival submission. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. as under: "s. 216 attracted and interest is payable by the assessee under it only if the advance tax happens to be under estimated by reasons other than underestimation of income. If, because of wrong calc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... finding contemplated by s. 216 is a condition precedent to the charging of interest under sub-s. (1) of s. 216". In the impugned order passed by the assessing Officer on 26th March, 1983 there is no finding by the assessing Officer that the assessee had underestimated the advance tax payable by it. He simply narrated the facts of filing two estimates by the assessee and came to the conclusion ....