TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (7) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the question involved is the same. The representative of the assessee suggested that an order common to both assessees may be passed. 2. The assessee-appellants are registered firms. The assessments resulted in refund of advance-tax paid. So the ITO paid interest u/s 214 of the Act (interest payable by the Government) to the assessees. But the returns have been furnished late. So the ITO c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d really paid advance-tax in excess of the assessed tax, it will have to be noted that the assessee has no motive to delay the filing of the returns and hence the charging of interest u/s 139(8) is not permissible. We could not conceive of importation of a theory of mens rea or motive in charging interest u/s 139(8). That is against the very wording of s. 139(8). Such a professed doctrine of mens ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case. That is entirely on different set of facts. On the other hand, it is 1977 CTR (Mad) 366 : (1977) 110 ITR 84 (Mad) (CIT vs. Kandaswamy Weaving Factory & Co.) that is applicable to the case on hand. There is also an Explanation No. 2 to s. 139(8), which provides that for the purpose of s. 139(8) where the assessee is a registered firm or an unregistered firm, which has been assessed u/cl (b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d) considered the validity of charging of interest u/s 139(8) where advance-tax paid by the firm was in excess of the amount of tax determined as payable on regular assessment and that the Tribunal laid down that in such a case. Explanation 2 of the section would not apply and interest would not be chargeable. The author of he article in the succeeding paragraph at page 54 itself states that the v....