JUDGMENT BY THE COURT :
The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question whether the amount paid by the assessee subsequent to the date of the payment of the last instalment, the advance tax on 15th December, 1972 qualified for earning interest under s. 214(1) was debatable and, therefore, in view of the judgment in T. C. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. & Ors. in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) the interest already allowed to the assessee could not be withdrawn under section ?"
2. Admittedly the assessee had paid last instalment of advance tax after 15th December, 1972, but during the financial year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The amount of instalment paid was found in excess on a regular assessment. The ITO allowed interest to the assessee on the excess amount. But later on taking the view that the instalment had been paid beyond due date, no interest was payable, the assessee was called upon by the respondent to refund the amount of interest pursuant to an order passed under s. 154 of the Act.
The appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the appellate authority.
3. In Chimanlal S. Patel vs. CIT & Anr. (1994) 210 ITR 419 (Guj) the Gujarat High Court held that irrespective of the dates of payment, interest will be payable if the entire amount of advance tax is paid on or before the end of the financial year.
A full bench of this Court took almost the same view in Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 145 (AP) (FB) in which earlier decision in Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1980) 121 ITR 339 (AP) was overruled. From this it is patent that conflicting views were taken on the abovereferred question. The Punjab and Haryana High Court also took the same view in CIT vs. Roadmaster Industries of India (P) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 639 (P&H) 77, though dissenting from the cases of P. C. Dwadesh Shreni & Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1962) 46 ITR 586 (All), Kangundi Industrial Works (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) and A. Sethumadhavan vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 587 (Ker)
4. From these decisions, it is clear that conflicting views are available on the above question and, therefore, the question is debatable and beyond the purview of s. 154 as held by the Tribunal.
For the reasons, the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.