Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. This is a reference under Sec. 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act " only). The statement of case was called for from the Tribunal on the following questions of law : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the Income-tax Officers order and directing him to refund the interest of Rs. 93,623 if already realised from the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings under Sec. 154 could not be started against the assessee? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest could be charged under Sec. 215 or Sec. 217(1A)? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order passed by the Income-tax Officer rectifying the mistake which was apparent from the records ? 2. The assessment year involved is 1974-75. The assessee is a limited company. It paid a sum of Rs, 21,943 as advance tax in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 210 of the Act pursuant to an order of the Income-tax Officer. On September 15, 1973, the assessee filed an estimate of its income as provided under Sec. 212 (3A) of the Act estimating its income at Rs. 2,30,000 for the assessment year in question since, according to the assessee, the current income was likely to be greater than the income on which the advance tax was payable by him under Sec. 210 of the Act. But it did not pay the tax in accordance with the said estimate. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 4,54,360 under Sec. 143(3) of the Act and the tax payable came to Rs. 2,62,393. Accordingly, the Income tax Officer, in the said order itself, apart from directing issuance of demand notice for tax, also directed that interest for late filing of return and penal interest under Sec. 217(1A) to be charged as per law, (emphasis added). 3. In the demand notice, issued pursuant to the said assessment order, apart from demand of tax, though Rs. 3. In the demand notice, issued pursuant to the said assessment order, apart from demand of tax, though Rs. 69,608 was demanded by way of interest under Sec. 215 of the Act, no demand was raised against any interest levied under Sec. 217(1A) of the Act. Subsequently, an order under Sec. 154 of the Act was passed holding the assessee liable to pay a sum of Rs. 93,623 as interest under Sec. 217(1A) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the said order having failed, a second appeal was taken to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and the relevant provisions of law, came to the conclusion that, on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Officer could not have taken recourse to the rectification proceeding as contemplated under Sec. 154 of the Act. It also took the view that, since the asessee had filed the estimate under Section 212(3A) of the Act, even on merits, no interest was chargeable under Section 217(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, a direction was issued for refund. 4. I would first like to deal with question No. (3) referred to above. For proper appreciation of the question, it will be proper to quote the relevant provisions of the Act which are as under : " Sec. 212. (3A) In the case of any assessee who is required to pay advance tax by an order under Sec. 210, if, by reason of the current income being likely to be greater than the income on which the advance tax payable by him under Sec. 210 has been computed or for any other reason, the amount of advance tax computed in the manner laid down in Sec. 209 on the current income (which shall be estimated by the assessee) exceeds the amount of advance tax demanded from him under Sec. 210 by more than 33-1/3 per cent. of the latter amount, he shall, on or before the date on which the last instalment of advance tax is due from him, send to the Income-tax Officer an estimate of- (i) the current income, and (ii) the advance tax payable by him on the current income calculated in the manner laid down in Sec. 209, and shall pay such amount of advance tax as accords with his estimate on such of the dates applicable in his case under Sec. 211 as have not expired, by instalments, which may be revised according to Sub-sec. (2). Provided that . . . . " 5. Sec. 215(1). Where, in any financial year, an assessee has paid advance tax under Sec. 209A or Sec. 212 on the basis of his own estimate (including revised estimate), and the advance tax so paid is loss than seventy-five per cent. of the assessed tax, simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum from the 1st day of April, next following the said financial year up to the date of the regular assessment shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the advance tax so paid falls short of the assessed tax : Provided that in the case of an assessee, being a company, the provisions of this Sub-sec. shall have effect as if for the words seventy-five per cent., the words eighty-three and one-third per cent. had been substituted. 6. Sec. 217. (1A) Where, on making the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds that any person who is required to send an estimate under Sub-section (4) of Sec. 20ffA or any such person as is referred to in Sub-section (3A) of Sec. 212 has not sent the estimate referred to therein, simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum from the 1st day of April, next following the financial year in which the advance tax was payable in accordance with the said Subsection (4) or, as the case may be, Sub-sec. (3A) up to the date of the regular assessment, shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the advance tax paid by him falls short of the assessed tax as defined in Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 215." 7. (3A) up to the date of the regular assessment, shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the advance tax paid by him falls short of the assessed tax as defined in Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 215." 7. A reading of Sec. 212(3A) clearly shows that, if an assessee who is required to pay advance tax pursuant to an order under Sec. 210 finds that his income for the relevant assessment year is likely to be greater than the income on which the advance tax is payable by him as per the orders of the Income-tax Officer, then (i) he has to send an estimate of the current income and the advance tax payable by him thereon and also (ii) he has to pay the said amount of advance tax on the date specified under the Act. Under Sec. 217(1A) of the Act, the Legislature has provided for levy of interest only in a situation where the assessee fails to send an estimate in respect of his current income and the amount of advance tax payable thereon in accordance with Section 212(3A). The language employed does not admit of any ambiguity. It clearly provides that the interest shall be payable if "such person as is referred to in Sub-section (3A) of Sec. 212 has not sent the estimate referred to therein." Under Sec. 217(1A), it has not been provided that interest will also be payable even if the estimate is filed but the advance tax payable thereon is not paid. On the other hand, in a case where the estimate is filed but advance tax payable thereon is not paid then, Sec. 215 of the Act will come into play and interest will be payable under this section in respect of the shortfall in the advance tax payable. 8. No doubt, if Sec. 215 is construed literally, it may be possible to hold that, in a case where the estimate is filed under Sec. 212 but no advance tax is paid on the basis of such an estimate, then, this provision will have no application because the opening sentence of the section is as under : " Where, in any financial year, an assessee has paid advance tax under Section 209A or Sec. 212 on the basis of his own estimate". But this question has already been considered by the Supreme Court long back in the case of Gursahai Saigal V/s. CIT [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 1; AIR 1963 SC 1062 . In this case, the Supreme Court has considered Sec. 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which, for the present purpose, materially corresponds to Sec. 215 of the 1961 Act. In para 13 of the judgment, it has been held that the word "paid" should be read as " ought to have been paid " to make the provision for levy of interest workable. According to the Supreme Court such interpretation cannot be said to be doing too much violence to the word used. It was also noticed that those who paid the tax but a smaller amount and those who did not pay the tax at all would then be put in the same position substantially, which is obviously fair and was clearly intended. It is needless to say that such interpretation is also in consonance with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution ensuring equality and fairness. 9. From the above, it is amply clear that what the Legislature intended was that in case the assessee does not send the estimate under Sec. 212(3A) referred to therein then he will be liable to pay interest under Sec. 217(1A). But if after sending an estimate he fails to comply with the second requirement of paying advance tax in accordance with his estimate on the due date then he will be liable to pay interest under Sec. 215 of the Act. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is held that the interest is chargeable from the assessee under Sec. 215 and not under Sec. 217(1A) of the Act. This answers question No. 3, referred to above. 10. Since on the facts of the case, I have taken the view that no interest is at all chargeable under Sec. 217(1A) of the Act, therefore, the answer to question No. 2 will be merely academic. Accordingly, I decline to enter into this question. 11. Questions Nos. (1) and (4), referred to above, are merely consequential to the answer given to question No. (3), which has been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, question Nos. (1) and (4) are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, I decline to enter into this question. 11. Questions Nos. (1) and (4), referred to above, are merely consequential to the answer given to question No. (3), which has been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, question Nos. (1) and (4) are also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of Sec. 260 of the Act. S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 13 I agree.