High Court Of Andhra Pradesh
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs. CIT
Sections 211, 214
Asst. Year 1972-73
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, N.D. Patnaik & S. Parvatha Rao, JJ.
RC No. 124 of 1985
19th June, 1992
Counsel Appeared
Swamy & D. Manmohan, for the Applicant : S.R. Ashok, for the Respondent
PARVATHA RAO, J.:
The sole question in this RC referred for the decision of this Court under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) at the instance of the assessee, i.e., M/s Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Hyderabad is : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to interest under s. 214 of the IT Act on Rs. 4,29,219 which was the excess amount of tax paid in the financial year 1971-72 (relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73) over the tax determined on regular assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?”
It is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1980) 14 CTR (AP) 328 : (1980) 121 ITR 339 (AP) against the assessee. However, when this RC came up for final disposal on 10th March, 1988 before G. Ramanujulu Naidu and Y.V. Anjaneyulu, JJ., the learned counsel for the assessee represented that the said decision of this Court required reconsideration as the High Courts of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Gujarat dissented from the view of this Court. The learned Judges felt that in view of the importance of the matter it was desirable to refer the matter to a Full Bench and that is how this RC is before us.
2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73 and the relevant previous year is the calender year ending on 31st Dec., 1971. The assessee made payments of advance tax on 15th June, 1991, 15th Sept., 1991 and 15th Dec., 1991 aggregating to Rs. 9,07,500. On 10th and 14th March, 1972 the assessee paid further amounts aggregating to Rs. 6,71,000 as advance tax. By assessment order dt. 23rd May, 1976 the ITO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 19,43,750 and computed the income-tax payable thereon by the assessee as Rs. 11,49,281 and arrived at the amount refundable to the assessee as follows : “Income assessed Rs. 19,43,750 Tax thereon Rs. 11,49,281 He did not treat the amounts aggregating to Rs. 6,71,000 paid by the assessee on 10th and 14th of March, 1972 as advance tax and, therefore, did not allow any interest under s. 214 of the Act on the said refundable amount of Rs. 4,29,219. On further appeals by the assessee questioning the non- allowance of interest under s. 214 of the Act on the said refundable amount of Rs. 4,29,219, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held against the assessee in view of the said decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra).
The learned counsel for the assessee placed before us a long catena of cases of the various High Courts taking a view different from that of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) and holding that interest under s. 214 of the Act had to be paid on the excess advance tax paid during the relevant financial year even though the instalments were not paid within the time specified.
The Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) arose on a writ petition. The assessee in that case paid the entire advance tax during the relevant financial year, i.e., 1974-75 but it had not paid the second and third instalments on the due dates, i.e., 15th Dec., 1974 and 15th March, 1975 but paid on 16th Dec., 1974, 25th March, 1975 and 29th March, 1975. The assessee was not paid interest on the excess amount of advance tax, i.e., Rs. 1,47,095 paid by it on the ground that it had not paid on the due dates. Contending that it was entitled to interest on the said excess amount under s. 214 of the Act, the assessee approached this Court by way of a writ petition. In a short judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows : “According to us, the assessee can claim interest under s. 214 of the Act only if he has complied with the requirement specified under s. 211 of the Act. A careful reading of s. 214 of the Act will indicate that the stress is not on the question whether all the instalments of advance tax were paid during the financial year, but the stress is that the instalments must have been paid before the due dates fixed for payment if the assessee was to be given the right to claim interest under s. 214 of the IT Act. Sec. 214 of the IT Act has to be read alongwith s. 218 of the Act. Under s. 218 of the IT Act, if the instalment of advance tax was not paid by the specified date, the assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such instalment and the Revenue is given the right to impose penalty on such assessee for not paying the instalment before the due date. It is not disputed that the Department could have proceeded against the petitioner and levied the penalty for the delay ….. ….. ….. Under the Explanation to s. 221 of the IT Act, an assessee shall not cease to be liable to any penalty merely by reason of the fact that before the levy of such penalty he has paid the tax. When once the company committed default in paying the instalments before the specified dates, it cannot claim interest on the excess of tax paid over the tax determined on regular assessment.”
It is obvious from the above that the Division Bench viewed s. 214 in the shadow cast by ss. 211 and 218 of the
Act and not in the light of all the relevant provisions.
5. In Syed Hasan Rasul Numa vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 711 the Supreme Court observed : “But in matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to the other words. No provision in the statute and no word in the section may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used.” Sub-s. (1) of s. 214 of the Act has to be interpreted keeping in view the above principles of construction. Sub-s. (1) of s. 214 of the Act, is as follows : “214. Interest payable by Government:—(1) The Central Government shall pay simple interest at twelve per cent per annum on the amount by which the aggregate sum of any instalments of advance tax paid during any financial year in which they are payable under ss. 207 to 213 exceeds the amount of the tax determined on regular assessment, from the 1st day of April next following the said financial year to the date of the regular assessment for the assessment year immediately following the said financial year, and where any such instalment is paid after the expiry of the financial year during which it is payable by reason of the provisions of s. 213, interest as aforesaid shall also be payable on that instalment from the date of its payment to the date of regular assessment : Provided that in respect of any amount refunded on a provisional assessment under s. 141A, no interest shall be paid for any period after the date of such provisional assessment.”
The answer to the question before us in this referred case turns on the interpretation of “the aggregate sum of any instalments of the advance tax paid during any financial year in which they are payable under ss. 207 to 213″occurring in sub-s. (1) of s. 214. It will be noticed that reference is made to a fascicle of sections from 207 to 213 and not to one s. 211 only, under which the instalments of advance tax are payable. The second aspect to be noticed is that the said sections are referred to only as provisions under which the instalments are payable for the purpose of identifying the financial year in which they are payable under the said sections. As regards the actual payment of instalments of advance tax, the requirement is that they should be paid during the relevant financial year. Another aspect to be noticed is that wherever the date on which the instalments of advance tax are paid during the relevant financial year, sub-s. (1) of s. 214 provides for interest on the said payments only from the first day of April next following the said financial year and not from the date of actual payment of each of the instalments. Keeping these several aspects in view, we find it difficult to sustain the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) that “a careful reading of s. 214 of the Act will indicate that the stress is not on the question whether all instalments of advance tax are paid during the financial year, but the stress is that the instalments must have been paid before the due dates fixed for payment if the assessee was to be given the right to claim interest under s. 214 of the Act”. An examination of the various relevant provisions including ss. 207 to 213 specifically referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 214 does not support the view of the Division Bench.
6. Secs. 207 to 213 occur in Part-C of Chapter XVII of the Act which deals with “collection and recovery of tax”. Part-A of Chapter XVII has the heading “general”. It begins with s. 190. Sub-s. (1) of s. 190 provides that “notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, the tax on such income shall be payable by deduction at source or by advance payment, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter”. Part B of Chapter XVII deals with “deduction at source”, Part-C deals with” “advance payment of tax”and begins with s. 207. Sub-s. (1) of s. 207 provides that “tax shall be payable in advance in accordance with the provisions of ss. 208 to 219 in the case of income other than”certain specified categories of income with which we are not concerned; and sub-s. (2) states that such tax is referred to in Chapter XVII as “advance tax”. Sub-s. (1) of s. 208 requires, inter alia, that advance tax shall be payable during the financial year. Sec. 209 provides for computation of advance tax payable by an assessee in the financial year. Sub-s. (1) of s. 210 provides that the ITO may, on or after the 1st day of April in the financial year, by order in writing, require a person who has been previously assessed, to pay advance tax determined in accordance with the provisions of ss. 207, 208 and 209. Sub-s. (1) of s. 211 provides that advance tax shall be payable in three equal instalments on the specified dates like 15th day of June, 15th day of September, 15th day of December, 15th day of March. Sec. 212 provides for the filing of estimates of advance tax by the assessee. And s. 213 provides for deferment of payment of advance tax on income of the nature of commission to the date on which such income would be normally received or adjusted and in such cases the assessee is required to communicate to the ITO the date to which such payment is deferred. Secs. 207 to 213 thus provide for advance payment of tax during the financial year, in all its facets—for the computation of the tax so payable, for the instalments in which such tax is payable, for the dates on which such instalments are to be paid, and in certain cases for the deferment of payment even beyond the financial year. The tax payable in advance is compendiously referred to as “advance tax”—s. 207(2). Therefore, when sub-s. (1) of s. 214 refers to ss. 207 to 213, there is no justification for looking only at s. 211 and to conclude that unless the instalments are paid strictly as per s. 211, interest is not payable under s. 214 on the excess amount of advance tax paid during the financial year, ignoring s. 208 which provides that advance tax shall be payable during the financial year. There is no justification also for relying on the provisions of ss. 218 and 221 for interpreting s. 214. Sec. 218 specifically deals with defaults in payment of instalments of advance tax on the dates specified under s. 210 or in s. 211. If an assessee does not pay any instalment of advance tax on the date specified under s. 210 or in s. 211, under s. 218 he is deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such instalment or instalments and penalty will be leviable under s. 221. But from that it does not follow that instalments of advance tax cannot be paid after the specified dates or that amounts paid as advance tax after the specified dates though during the financial year are not to be treated as advance payment of tax. The Division Bench in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) noticed the Explanation to sub-s. (1) of s. 221 which clarifies that an assessee shall not cease to be liable to any penalty merely by reason of the fact that before the levy of such penalty he has paid the tax. But the Division Bench failed to see that this illustrates that tax can be paid even after the default attracting the levy of penalty and that a fiction is created under sub-s. (1) of s. 218 thereby attracting the levy of penalty under s. 221. The Division Bench also failed to notice the second proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 221 which is as follows : “Provided further that where the ITO is satisfied that the default was for good and sufficient reasons, no penalty shall be levied under this section.”
The fact that has to be kept in view here is that the assessee is deemed to be in default in respect of one or more instalments of advance tax because he has not paid them on the specified dates during the financial year and thus committed default. If the ITO is satisfied that the default is for good and sufficient reason no penalty shall be levied as per the said proviso. It is obvious from this that instalments of advance tax can also be paid after the specified dates without the default attracting penalty if there is good and sufficient cause. Another Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. P. Ramagouda Satyam Reddy & Co. (1988) 70 CTR (AP) 58 : (1988) 172 ITR 491 (AP) considered the meaning of the Explanation to cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 of the Act which is as follows :
“Explanation : In this clause `assessed tax’ means tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source under Chapter XVII-B or paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C;” The question referred to this Court for decision under s. 256(1) of the Act was : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the advance tax paid beyond due date should be deducted from the tax payable for the purpose of calculating the penalty under s. 271(1) (a) ?”
Dealing with the various provisions of Chapter XVII-C, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Division Bench observed as follows : “Sec. 214 provides that where the advance tax paid during any financial year exceeds the amount of tax determined on regular assessment, interest shall be payable by the Central Government to the assessee on such excess amount from the 1st day of April next following the relevant financial year to the date of the regular assessment for the said assessment year. Similarly, s. 215 provides that where during any financial year, the assessee had paid advance tax which is less than 75% of the assessed tax, interest at the prescribed rate shall be chargeable upto the date of the regular assessment on such advance amount. Where, however, no advance tax is paid on the prescribed dates, he will be treated as a defaulter and he will be liable to the levy of penalty under s. 221. Sec. 219 provides that any sum paid by or recovered from an assessee as advance tax in pursuance of the said Chapter shall be treated as a payment of tax in respect of the income of the period which would be the previous year for an assessment year next following the financial year in which it was payable and credit, therefor, shall be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. This, in short, is the scheme of payment of advance tax. One feature to be noticed is that the concept of advance tax is tied up with the financial year relevant to the assessment year and not with the previous year adopted by the particular assessee for the said assessment year. …. ….. ….. ….. ….. The question of imposition of penalty under s. 271 arises only after the financial year is over and only where the return is not filed within the prescribed period. For such delay or default, as the case may be, penalty is levied and this penalty is calculated on the basis of the tax assessed. But the tax deducted at source and tax paid by way of advance are deducted from out of the tax assessed for the purpose of calculating the penalty. Having regard to this context, it would be reasonable to hold that all the tax which is paid as advance tax during the relevant financial year should be deducted. All such amounts should be treated as advance tax paid under Chapter XVII-C for the purpose of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(a). It would not be reasonable to say that any instalment of advance tax not paid on or before the prescribed date but paid after the due date but during the relevant financial year shall not be treated as advance tax and shall not be deducted as contemplated by the aforesaid Explanation. Having regard to the purpose, object and context of s. 271(1)(a), the proper course is to treat all tax paid as advance tax during the financial year as tax paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C and deduct the same from out of the assessed tax as contemplated by the Explanation to s. 271(1)(a).”
The learned Judge steered clear of the Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) observing that certain decisions were placed before them, but none of them dealt with the Explanation with which they were concerned. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court also in CIT vs. Surajbhan Mahawar (1989) 84 CTR (Cal) 60 : (1990) 186 ITR 400 (Cal), took a similar view dealing with the very same Explanation and observed as follows : “There is no warrant for the interpretation that any amount paid after the date on which the last instalment of advance tax was payable will not be an amount paid in advance under Chapter XVIIC of the Act. Sec. 211 of the Act, reliance on which was placed by Shri Chakraborty, only lays down the dates on which the advance tax instalments are required to be paid. There is nothing in this section to suggest that any payment made after the last of these dates will cease to be payment of advance tax. This section, as pointed out by Shri Singh, says that the advance tax shall be payable on the dates mentioned in the section. The argument adopted by the Department, if accepted, may even mean that payments made before those dates (and not on these dates) will not be payments of advance tax. The argument is plainly illogical.”
Another Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. T.N. Viswanatha Reddy (1991) 98 CTR (AP) 49 : (1991) 190 ITR 266 (AP) addressing itself to the question whether there was scope for controversy or debate in regard to interpretation of s. 214 of the Act observed as follows : “Sec. 211(1) sets out the time schedule for the payment of advance tax instalments. In Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1980) 14 CTR (AP) 328 : (1980) 121 ITR 339 (AP), this Court took the view that unless the instalments have been paid before the due dates fixed for payment, the assessee forfeits the right to claim interest under s. 214. In that context, the Division Bench referred to s. 218 of the Act and observed that, if the instalment of advance tax was not paid by the specified date, the assessee shall be deemed to be in default in respect of such instalment and becomes liable to pay penalty. The other view is based upon the plain and literal interpretation of the section. On such an interpretation, it is possible to say that it would be sufficient compliance with s. 214 if the advance tax is paid during the financial year though such payment is strictly not in accordance with s. 211 of the Act. … … ….
We have already made a reference to another judgment of this Court in CIT vs. P. Ramagouda Satyam Reddy & Co. (1988) 70 CTR (AP) 58 : (1988) 172 ITR 491 (AP), which had struck a different note while interpreting more or less similar language employed in the Explanation to s. 271(1)(a). This casts a further cloud on the correctness of the decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra).” Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J., speaking for another Division Bench of this Court observed in J & J Dechane vs. CIT (1990) 182 ITR 345 (AP) as follows : “We have earlier referred to the provision contained in s. 209 which provides that the amount of advance tax is payable by an assessee in the financial year, which lends support to the contention (of the learned counsel) that, even if the advance tax instalment is not paid on the due date, it should be taken into account if it is paid during the financial year preceding the assessment year.”
7. Thus, in subsequent decisions of this Court Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) does not find support. We are also unable to agree with that decision. On a fair and reasonable interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 214, we are of the view that if the requirement of payment during the financial year is satisfied and the aggregate sums of such payments exceed the amount of tax determined on regular assessment, on the excess amount the assessee is entitled to interest under sub-s. (1) of s. 214 from the first day of April next following the financial year to the date of the regular assessment.
8. A number of High Courts have taken a view different from that of the Division Bench in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra). In Chandrakant Damodardas vs. ITO (1980) 16 CTR (Guj) 7 : (1980) 123 ITR 748 (Guj) a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered the very same question in a writ petition and after detailed discussion of the various relevant provisions held as follows : “The question is of the financial year in which the instalments are payable under ss. 207 to 213. The legislature in our opinion has deliberately omitted to use the words “paid in accordance with ss. 207 to 213”. The legislature has used the words “payable under ss. 207 to 213”. That being the case and since there is no other indication in s. 214 that the dates of instalments are strictly to be adhered to and if they are not adhered to interest will not be payable, the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted. We would be required to do violence to the language used by the legislature if we read into s. 214 the requirement that for the purpose of earning interest from the 1st day of April following the end of the financial year in question, the assessee must have paid all the instalments of advance tax on the dates referred to in s. 211. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
In view of the language used in s. 214 particularly with reference to the 1st day of April and not with reference to the dates on which the instalments are actually paid by the assessee, it is clear that what the legislature intended to do is to provide that irrespective of the dates on which instalments of advance tax are paid, interest will be payable if the entire amount of advance tax which was paid up in the course of the financial year exceeds the amount of tax determined on regular assessment. If these two conditions are satisfied interest must be paid to the assessee. The further requirement which the Revenue wants us to read, namely, the third condition which it also wants us to read in s. 214, namely, that instalments of advance tax must have been paid on or before the due dates mentioned in s. 211 for the payment of instalments, cannot be read looking to the language of s. 214. Looking to the purpose and the scheme of s. 214 which we have analysed above, it is obvious that the stand taken up by the Revenue is entirely untenable. The payability is one aspect and the dates on which the amounts of instalments are required to be paid is another aspect altogether. As we have indicated earlier, failure to pay the instalments on due dates might involve an assessee in payment of penalty if the other conditions regarding payment of penalty are satisfied, but the concept under s. 214 being totally unconnected with any concept of deprivation of interest in the case where penalty is incurred, the interest referred to in s. 214 must be paid if the two conditions are satisfied, namely, that all the instalments of advance tax are paid in the course of the financial year irrespective of the dates when they are paid, and, secondly, the aggregate sum of the instalments of advance tax paid in the course of the financial year exceeds the amount of tax determined on regular assessment. There is no third condition to be read in s. 214 as one of the conditions qualifying for the payment of interest in respect of excess from the 1st day of April following the end of the financial year in question upto the date of the regular assessment.” When the same question arose again before another Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO (1983) 36 CTR (Guj) 195 : (1984) 145 ITR 105 (AP) the decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) was relied upon by the Departmental counsel and the Gujarat High Court did not agree with the view taken by this Court in that case. Even though the decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) found favour with a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Sethumadhavan vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (Ker) 376 : (1980) 122 ITR 587 (AP), on appeal Division Bench of that Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Santha S. Shenoy vs. Union of India (1982) 29 CTR (Ker) 127 : (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker) disagreeing with the decision in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) and agreeing with the view of the Gujarat High Court in Chandrakant Damodardas case (supra). The Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Jagannath Narayan Kutumbik Trust (1983) 144 ITR 526 (MP) and of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. T.T. Investments & Traders P. Ltd. (1984) 42 CTR (Mad) 48 : (1984) 148 ITR 347 (AP) and of the Gauhati High Court in Moheema Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (Gau) 152 : (1990) 182 ITR 187 (Gau) disagreed with the decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) and agreed with the view of the Gujarat High Court in Chandrakant Damodardas case (supra). A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. (1990) 85 CTR (Kar) 172 : (1990) 185 ITR 25 (Kar) agreed with the view of the Gujarat High Court in Chandrakant Damodardas case (supra) and held that interest under s. 214 was rightly allowed on the instalment of advance tax paid after the specified date on 20th March, 1978. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajoy Paper Mills Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 454 (Cal) held that under sub- s. (1) of s. 214 interest shall be payable by the Central Government if two conditions were satisfied : firstly, instalments of advance tax must have been paid during the financial year in which they are payable under ss. 207 to 213; secondly, the agreed sum of instalments should exceed the amount of tax determined on regular assessment. Rejecting the contention of the Revenue that the assessee cannot claim interest under s. 214 unless payments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act within the time provided under the law, it was observed as follows : “There is no reference in s. 214(1) about the dates on which instalments are payable under s. 211 of the Act. This section does not prescribe that, to be eligible for interest, advance tax has to be paid on the date(s) stipulated under s. 211 for payment of such instalments. It only provides that instalments must have been paid during the financial year in which they are payable. It is true that s. 214 refers to instalments payable under ss. 207 to 213 which include s. 211 but there is no reference in s. 214 about the manner of payment of instalments. We cannot persuade ourselves to read the mandate of s. 211 in s. 214 which is only concerned with the payments made during the financial year and not payments made on the specified date(s) during the financial year. In our view, whatever is paid before the close of the financial year would qualify as advance tax. If credit is given by the Department for the belated payments made during the financial year in calculating the tax due on regular assessment, we fail to see how such tax would not be treated as advance tax. It is payment in advance towards tax to be determined on regular assessment. If the Revenue, for the purpose of determining the tax due on regular assessment, cannot ignore such payment, then for the purpose of calculating interest also, such payment cannot be kept out of consideration.”
In CIT vs. Traub (India) P. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 525 (Bom) it was contended before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that in order to be entitled to interest under the provisions of s. 214 of the Act, the payment of advance tax must have been made in accordance with the Schedule prescribed under ss. 207 to 213 and since the Schedule had not been adhered to, but there had been a default (though only of a period of two days) the assessee would not be entitled to interest under s. 214, and the Division Bench observed : “the question whether this is a proper reading of s. 214 is debatable”. The Division Bench did not further enquire into the question in view of the finding on the facts of that case that the delayed payment by the assessee was accepted by the Department as payment of advance tax instalment and that as all the other requirements of s. 214 were satisfied the assessee was entitled to interest in respect of the excess of the advance tax so paid by it and that, therefore, the facts did not give rise to any question of law. However, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Pfizer Ltd. vs. K.N. Anantharama Aiyar, CIT (1985) 46 CTR (Bom) 191 : (1987) 163 ITR 461 (Bom) while dealing with the question whether delayed payments of advance tax could be ignored under s. 215 of the Act, also considered the provisions of s. 214 and observed as follows: “The concept of s. 214 of the Act [which has been held by a Full Bench of this Court, in CIT vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Bom) 219 (FB) : (1984) 146 ITR 452 (Bom) (FB) to be the counterpart of s. 215] was the concept of the aggregate amount of the instalments of advance tax paid during the particular financial year. There was no indication in s. 214 that the dates of the instalments were strictly to be adhered to and, if they were not adhered to, interest would not be payable. It would be doing violence to the language used in s. 214 if the requirement were to be read into it that, for the purpose of earning interest from 1st April following the end of the financial year in question, the assessee must have paid all the instalments of advance tax on the dates referred to in s. 211. xxx xxx xxx xxx There is nothing in s. 215 which requires the payments of instalments of advance tax to be made on or before the due dates thereof before the provisions of that section can apply. I cannot, with great respect, agree with the reasoning of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that, because the assessee has rendered himself liable to penalty for late payment of an instalment of advance tax, he becomes disentitled to the recovery of interest under s. 214 if the amount paid by him as advance tax is in excess of the amount assessed to be due. I see no reason to link the provisions of the Act in regard to the payment of interest and the provisions which impose a penalty for late payment of instalments of advance tax. The payment of interest is to recompense the party who has unlawfully been deprived of moneys due to it. Interest does not in any way partake of the nature of a penalty. To make an assessee pay interest on an amount he has already paid to the Revenue would be to impose upon him a penalty which is not the purpose of s. 215. A penalty for late payment of an instalment of advance tax is provided for elsewhere in the Act.” A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court also in CIT vs. Roadmaster Industries of India (P) Ltd. (1992) 101 CTR (P&H) 243 : (1992) 193 ITR 639 (P&H) did not agree with the decision of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works case (supra) and preferred to follow the preponderance of judicial opinion to the contrary. In that case an additional argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the Department based on the proviso added to s. 211 of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988. The said proviso reads as follows : “Provided that any amount paid by way of advance tax on or before the 31st day of March shall also be treated as advance tax paid during the financial year ending on that day for all purposes of this Act.”
The contention advanced was that prior to the introduction of the proviso the intention of the legislature was otherwise and that therefore, any amounts paid subsequent to the dates specified in s. 211 could not be treated as advance tax. The learned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the said contention observing that the said amendment was only clarificatory in nature and must be construed as such. We agree with this view.
9. For the reasons stated above, we overrule the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) and hold that under sub-s. (1) of s. 214 of the Act any amount paid towards advance tax during the financial year in which it is payable will have to be taken into account for arriving at the aggregate and it is sufficient if the instalment of advance tax is paid during the financial year even though not on the specified date. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the assessee paid the further sum of Rs. 6,71,000 as advance tax during the previous year in question, i.e., by 31st March, 1972. There is no provision in the Act to treat the said payment of tax as in the nature of deposit and refuse interest thereon under s. 214 of the Act. The ITO seems to have anticipated a possible contention that may be advanced on behalf of the assessee that once the payment is accepted as payment of advance tax instalment it would not be open to the Department to treat it as anything else for the purpose of s. 214 of the Act.
In the circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
[Citation : 202 ITR 145]
