BHARAT TEXTILE WORKS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE may mention in this case that though in the petition the vires of S. 217(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, have been challenged on the ground of constitutional validity, Mr. Pathak for the petitioner stated that he was not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of S. 217(1A) and hence we are dealing with this matter on the footing that there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of s. 217(1A).

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 in this case is a partnership firm registered with the IT authorities under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are three of the five partners of the first petitioner firm. Along with those five partners, one minor, Shashikar Mohanlal Panchal, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership during the relevant period of assessment. Subsequently, on attaining majority the said minor was taken up as a partner of the first petitioner firm. The first petitioner manufactures textile machinery and sells the same. All the partners of the first petitioner firm including the minor are all citizens of India and have their domicile in India.

(3.) THE main question that arises for our consideration is, whether the amounts of advance tax paid before the first day of April next following the financial year in which the advance tax was payable in accordance with S. 212(3A) should be given credit for while computing interest or what is popularly known as "penal interest" under S. 217(1A).