Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The following question of law, arising out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 895 of 1986 dated July 13, 1987, in respect of assessment year 1982-83 has been referred for the opinion of this Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 216(a), the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 216 in respect of the deficient payment of advance tax in the first two instalments for the assessment year 1982-83 ? 2. Briefly, the facts, as noticed by the Tribunal in the statement of case, are that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee filed an estimate of advance tax payable, determining its liability at Rs. 46,12,500. As required, the advance tax was to be paid in three equated instalments on September 15, 1981, December 15, 1981 and March 15, 1982. As per the estimate filed, the first two instalments of Rs. 15,37,500 each were paid by the assessee before the due dates. However, just close to the last date for deposit of the final instalment on March 15, 1982, the assessee revised the estimate of advance tax on March 12, 1982, determining the advance tax liability at Rs. 68,88,000. The balance amount of advance tax was paid by the assessee with the final instalment. This resulted in short payment of the first two instalments of advance tax which would have been of Rs. 22,96,000 each as against Rs. 15,37,500 paid by the assessee. As the assessee deferred payment of the first two instalments, the Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). The levy of interest was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "the CIT(A)"). In appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the interest under Section 216 is to be calculated having regard to the aggregate advance tax actually paid during the year and not instalment wise. Since the assessee had paid the entire advance tax up to the last date, the interest was not held to be chargeable. 3. In appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the interest under Section 216 is to be calculated having regard to the aggregate advance tax actually paid during the year and not instalment wise. Since the assessee had paid the entire advance tax up to the last date, the interest was not held to be chargeable. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the paper book. 4. The Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 216 the Act by making the following observations in the order of assessment: The assessee instead of filing of statement of advance tax filed an estimate on September 14, 1981, estimating income at Rs. 75 lakhs. This was revised on March, 82, and the income was estimated at Rs. 1.12 crores. The comparative details of sales with preceding year show that there was no decline in business activities. The assessee by filing estimate on September 14, 1981, deferred the payments of instalments of advance-tax and as such interest is chargeable which comes to Rs. 60,680 (emphasis supplied) 5. A perusal of the above observations made by the Assessing Officer clearly shows that in the case in hand, the assessee had underestimated the instalments of advance tax payable as otherwise comparative details of sales with preceding year showed that there was no decline in business activities. Even at the time of the argument it was not disputed by learned Counsel for the assessee that in the immediately previous year the advance tax paid was more than what was initially estimated by the assessee for the year in question. In fact, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order clearly recording a finding that it was a case of under estimation of advance tax resultantly reducing the first and second instalments considerably. The consideration of the point in issue by the Tribunal was not in the right perspective. A plain reading thereof would result in rewriting of the provisions of Section 216 of the Act itself when it is observed that the interest under Section 216 has to be calculated having regard to the aggregate advance tax paid during the year and not as per the instalments due at the relevant time. A plain reading thereof would result in rewriting of the provisions of Section 216 of the Act itself when it is observed that the interest under Section 216 has to be calculated having regard to the aggregate advance tax paid during the year and not as per the instalments due at the relevant time. Learned Counsel for the Revenue is right in contending that there being clear finding by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that it was a case of under estimation of the instalments of advance tax payable by the assessee, there was no material before the Tribunal to have held otherwise. 6. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT, to submit that though levy of interest on under-estimation of advance tax by itself may not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 216 of the Act for levy of interest if there had been a bona fide mistake, however, in case the assessee fails to furnish any satisfactory explanation, the interest was leviable. Though cited by learned Counsel for the assessee, a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in CIT V/s. Namdang Tea Co. India Ltd., is also to the same effect. Similar are the observations made by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT V/s. Rayalaseema Mills Ltd., wherein also it is observed that in case under-estimation of advance tax is due to under-estimation of income by the assessee or due to any other reason, the provisions of Section 216 of the Act would be attracted. 7. From the factual matrix as narrated above, which is borne out from the record, it is evident that the assessee never submitted any explanation to show the reason for paying lesser advance tax in the first two instalments and the reason for revision of estimation of advance tax at the time of payment of the third and final instalment. The assessee was clearly liable to pay interest under Section 216 of the Act as there was clear violation of Section 209A of the Act. 8. The assessee was clearly liable to pay interest under Section 216 of the Act as there was clear violation of Section 209A of the Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee tried to explain the issue by stating that the revision of advance tax payable by the assessee at the time of payment of the third and final instalments itself showed the bona fides of the assessee as it came to know of its liability finally at that time. Besides this, he could not refer to any other material on record to substantiate his plea that there was a certain spurt in activity or the business of the assessee, which resulted in substantial income arising in the last quarter of the year, after payment of the first two instalments. He also could not distinguish the fact that the business of the assessee was being carried on the same lines as in the immediately preceding year and also the fact that in the immediately preceding year, the advance tax paid by the assessee was more than what was initially estimated for the year in question. 9. Additionally, non-furnishing of the explanation by the assessee is also evident from a perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer simultaneously under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 wherein it is specifically recorded that on a comparison of purchase or sales monthwise, for the year in question with the immediately preceding year, it was found that there was neither any decline in the first six months nor there was any abnormal increase in the last months of the financial year which could form a reason for revision of the advance tax payable by the assessee. It is further specifically recorded therein that no explanation for under estimation of deferred instalments of advance tax was furnished by the assessee in spite of opportunity having been granted. 10. Learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to and relied upon a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in CIT V/s. Lankashi Tea and Seed Estate P. Ltd., to submit that mere under-estimation of advance tax is not sufficient to charge interest as the authorities are required to see whether under-estimation is made deliberately to reduce the tax burden, only then the provisions of Section 216 of the Act can be invoked. There is no quarrel even with the proposition laid down therein. There is no quarrel even with the proposition laid down therein. What we find from a perusal of the findings recorded, in the present case as summarised above, is that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to under-estimate the advance tax. Accordingly, the judgment is distinguishable on facts. 11. In view of our above discussions, the question referred is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 216 of the Act were attracted, there being deliberate under-estimation of the first two instalments of advance tax, the assessee is liable to pay interest on that account. 12. The reference is disposed of in the manner indicated above.