Judgment Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. IN this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1984-85, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the facts found by the learned Commissioner of Income lax (Appeals) were correct though the assessee company had not filed statement of advance tax as required under Section 209A(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ? 2. WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the interest charged under Section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer for non-filing of the statement of advance tax under Section 209A(1)(a) ibid?" The facts leading to this reference are that, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the company was an old income-tax assessee and that it was required to file a statement pf advance tax under Section 209(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, by September 15, 1983. The statement of advance tax was required to be filed in Form No. 28A under Rule 38A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, The assessee had not filed the statement of advance tax as required by the provisions of the law in vogue. Instead of filing the statement of advance tax in Form No. 28A, the assessee-company filed an estimate of advance tax in Form No. 29 under Rule 39 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, on September 20, 1983, declaring the advance tax liability at " nil ". Again, on December 12, 1983, the assessee-company filed another estimate in Form No. 29 showing the advance tax liability at "nil". Then, another estimate in Form No. 29 was filed on March 14, 1984, showing its advance tax liability at Rs. 2,16,375 and the assessee made payment of Rs. 2,01,938 on March 15, 1984, as advance tax. Thereafter, the return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 was filed on July 31, 1984, showing a total income of Rs. 14,89,850 and the tax liability on the total income of Rs. 14,89,850 at Rs. 8,45,241. Out of the tax liability of Rs. 8,45,241, Rs. 3,85,596 was shown as tax deducted at source and advance tax paid Rs. Thereafter, the return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 was filed on July 31, 1984, showing a total income of Rs. 14,89,850 and the tax liability on the total income of Rs. 14,89,850 at Rs. 8,45,241. Out of the tax liability of Rs. 8,45,241, Rs. 3,85,596 was shown as tax deducted at source and advance tax paid Rs. 2,01,938 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,57,707 was paid on July 30, 1984, being payment under Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Subsequently, a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 22,00,397 was filed on August 18, 1986, under the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Scheme disclosing higher income. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also found that as the assessee-company had failed to submit the statement of advance tax as required under the provisions of Section 209A(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee company was liable to pay interest under Section 217(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 217(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 1,13,392. 3. BEING aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), inter alia, against the charging of interest under Section 217(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), considering the fact that the assessee-company had filed estimates on September 20, 1983 (though beyond the date of first instalment of advance tax, i.e., September 15, 1983, December 12, 1983 and March 14, 1984, and ignoring the fact that the assessee had not filed the statement of advance tax under Section 209A(1)(a), cancelled the interest charged by the Assessing Officer under Section 217(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mentioning in the appellate order as " interest charged under Section 217(1A) " of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. THE Department then preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals. THE Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case as analysed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating the " facts found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) appear to be correct and no interference is called for". At the hearing before us, it was contended by Mr. Murarka. THE Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case as analysed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating the " facts found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) appear to be correct and no interference is called for". At the hearing before us, it was contended by Mr. Murarka. learned counsel appearing for the assessee, that since the assessee had filed an estimate in lieu of a statement, the question of levy of interest under Section 217(1A) did not arise at all. 5. THE contention of Mr. Shome, on the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue, was that there was no finding that the assessee in fact filed an estimate in lieu of the statement in terms of Section 209A(2) and that apart, unless a statement is filed in terms of Section 209A(1)(a), the assessee is liable to pay interest. 6. WE have considered the rival contentions. It is necessary for us to make the grounds clear on facts. In the first instance, the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer clearly shows that what he had in mind is the levy of interest under Section 217(1A). The order in fact concludes with the words "charge interest under Section 217(1A)" as per order. There is a computation sheet of tax companion to the order which specifically quantifies the interest under Section 217(1A) at Rs. 1,13,392. As the last item in that computation sheet appears the note : " Add : Interest under Section 217(1A) Rs. 1,13,392. " It is, however, to be mentioned that there is a further statement of computation of interest. That statement, however, refers to the interest computed as interest under Section 217(1)(a). 7. BUT the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), in his order, found as a fact that the charge of interest was under Section 217(1 A). He also found that the assessee had filed estimates of income and advance tax on several dates, viz., September 20, 1983, December 12, 1983, and March 14, 1984, each time raising the estimated income. Thus, the facts borne on the records led him to the inference that an estimate, of advance tax was actually filed by the appellant for the year and the first estimate was followed up by successive revised estimates raising the income. 8. Thus, the facts borne on the records led him to the inference that an estimate, of advance tax was actually filed by the appellant for the year and the first estimate was followed up by successive revised estimates raising the income. 8. AT the very outset, it is necessary for us to be clear in mind on the basic fact, whether the interest had been charged by the Assessing Officer under Section 217(1)(a) despite the clear indication otherwise in the assessment order. If we have to accept the Revenue's contention that the charge of interest was not under Section 217(1A) but under Section 217(1)(a), the first question as framed is totally redundant and does not bear on the ultimate issue which finds expression only in the second question. But the Tribunal having found that the interest was charged under Section 217(1A) and that finding of fact not having been challenged, we have no option but to proceed on the footing that, in this case, interest was levied not under Section 217(1)(a) but under Section 217(1A). Section 217(1A) refers to a failure which is altogether different from the failure attracting the interest under Section 217(1)(a). Section 217(1A) provides that, where, upon making the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds that any person, who is required to send an estimate under Sub-section (4) of Section 209A or any such person as is referred to in Sub-section (3A) of Section 212 has not sent the estimate referred to therein, simple interest shall be charged. 9. BUT the case of the Revenue before us is that the assessee did not send any statement and not an estimate referred to in Section 209A. In our view, on a plain reading of Section 217(1A), it is apparent that the interest under this section can be charged if an estimate is not filed. The said provision has no application to a case where the statement as mentioned in Section 209A is not sent by the assessee. 10. IN the light of the facts found and on the construction of Section 217(1A), we are not called upon to go into the contention raised by Mr. The said provision has no application to a case where the statement as mentioned in Section 209A is not sent by the assessee. 10. IN the light of the facts found and on the construction of Section 217(1A), we are not called upon to go into the contention raised by Mr. Murarka, learned counsel for the assessee, that if the assessee had filed an estimate in lieu of the statement, he had satisfied the provisions of Section 209A and, in such a situation, no interest under Section 217 can at all be levied where interest had already been levied under Sections 215 and 216. That is an issue unrelated to the questions to be answered. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.