Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are, "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 by the CIT cancelling the order of the ITO for the asst. yr. 1979-80 on the ground that there was no previous year at all ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal's view that the order passed by the ITO for the asst. yr. 1979-80 when there is no previous year is valid in law and that the assessee is entitled to interest under s. 214 of the IT Act is sustainable in law, having regard to the provisions of ss. 3(1) and 4 of the IT Act, 1961 ?" 2. The assessee-company carries on business in manufacture and sale of engine valves. It had paid advance tax, during the 12 months period preceding 31st March, 1979, which 12 months period was its financial year at the time of payment. However, on 27th June, 1979, it applied to the ITO seeking permission to change its accounting year to June and permit the profits for the period of 1st April, 1978, to 30th June, 1979, to be offered for assessment in the asst. yr. 1980-81. That request was granted by the ITO. The assessee had, before seeking the change in the accounting year, had filed the estimate in Form No. 29 on 2nd March, 1979, under s. 212(3A) estimating its income for the previous year ending 31st March, 1979 at Rs. 1, 02, 75, 000 and estimated the tax liability at Rs. 60, 63, 750. Deducting therefrom the amount paid towards advance tax prior to 12th March, 1979. It had paid a sum of Rs. 25, 21, 188 on 10th March, 1979. 3. After that assessee applied to the ITO on 27th June, 1979, to change its accounting year to June and that request was granted by the ITO. It nevertheless filed a return of income on 30th June, 1979, for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and sought refund of the amount paid as advance tax during the financial year 1978-79. The ITO issued refund and also directed payment of interest on Rs. 1, 19, 854 under s. 214 of the Act. 4. It nevertheless filed a return of income on 30th June, 1979, for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and sought refund of the amount paid as advance tax during the financial year 1978-79. The ITO issued refund and also directed payment of interest on Rs. 1, 19, 854 under s. 214 of the Act. 4. It is that order of the ITO which was revised suo motu by the CIT who held that the assessee was not entitled to payment of interest as the amount paid by it was not the amount which was required to be paid by it as advance tax for the year 1979-80 in view of the change in the accounting year to June, 1979. 5. There was no occasion at all for making any assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80 and the return filed by the assessee was of no consequence. The amount though paid as advance tax, was not the amount which was required to be paid in view of the change in the accounting year. 6. The Tribunal, to whom the assessee appealed, has set aside the order of the CIT and restored the order of the ITO. Revenue being aggrieved by its is now before us. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The questions referred to us are similar to the questions reference of which is sought by the Revenue in T.C.P. 410/86 and that T.C.P. is also being disposed of by this order. The questions referred to us in the T.C.P. are treated as having been referred to us. Those questions are raised for the asst. yr. 1980-81 and those questions are also answered by this order. 8. The facts referred to by us earlier clearly shows that for the asst. yr. 1979-80, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to file a return much less an obligation to pay advance tax, as at the request of the assessee itself, the accounting year was allowed to be altered to a period of 15 months from 1st April, 1978, to 30th June, 1979. The assessment of the income for that period was to be made for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The amount that had been deposited by the assessee as advance tax therefore, was not the amount which was 'payable' under ss. 207 to 213 of the Act in respect of which, interest under s. 214 could be claimed. The assessment of the income for that period was to be made for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The amount that had been deposited by the assessee as advance tax therefore, was not the amount which was 'payable' under ss. 207 to 213 of the Act in respect of which, interest under s. 214 could be claimed. It is no doubt true that as on the date the advance tax was paid, the assessee was required to pay that amount but the assessee having subsequently voluntarily altered the accounting year, the amount paid earlier as advance tax lost their character as advance tax at least insofar as s. 214 of the Act is concerned. While the assessee was entitled to take back the amount so deposited, they were not the amounts which could be regarded as advance tax which were payable during the financial year relevant to the asst. yr. 1980-81, by the assessee by reason of the change in the accounting year. The assessee was not required to have its income assessed for that year as the entire 12 months period from 1st April, 1978, to 30th June, 1979 [sic-31st March, 1979], being a part of the 15 months period from 1st April, 1978, to 30th June, 1979, constituted the financial year relevant to the asst. yr. 1980-81. The amount that had been paid earlier while being refundable to the assessee, the assessee had not acquired any right to claim interest on those amounts under s. 214 of the Act. Interest under that provision is allowable only in respect of the amount paid as advance tax during any financial year in which "they are payable under ss. 207 to 213" of the Act, if the amount so paid exceeds the amount of assessed tax. After having obtained permission from the ITO to offer income for 15 months period for the asst. yr. 1980-81, the assessee cannot contend that the assessed tax for the asst. yr. 1979-80 is 'O', that the entire amount paid as advance tax between 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, is an amount which is in excess of the amount assessed to tax and claim interest thereon under s. 214. yr. 1980-81, the assessee cannot contend that the assessed tax for the asst. yr. 1979-80 is 'O', that the entire amount paid as advance tax between 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, is an amount which is in excess of the amount assessed to tax and claim interest thereon under s. 214. The Tribunal has found fault with the ITO for not stipulating on condition while allowing the change in the accounting year to the effect that the amount paid as advance tax by the assessee will be treated only as non-interest bearing amount. It was wholly unnecessary for the ITO to stipulate any such condition. It was at the request of the assessee the accounting year had been altered. The assessee cannot take advantage of such alteration to claim interest on the amounts, which by its own showing were the amounts which were not required to be paid in that financial year though they had been paid. The assessee could only take refund of the amount and the Department was not required to pay any interest on that amount. The CIT was perfectly right in revising the order of the ITO and in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the interest that had been allowed by the ITO. 9. The questions referred to us in the Tax Case No. 820/88 and those raised in T.C.P. No. 410/86, and which are treated by us having been referred to us, are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 2, 000 (Rs. Two thousand) only.