Case Law Details
Case Name : Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Vs REPCO Home Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : T.C.(A).No.601 of 2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/11/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Madras High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Issue- Whether interest under Section 234C of the Act is to be calculated based on date of clearing of the cheque or date of presentation of the cheque.
Held- It is not the case of the department that the cheque issued by the assessee was dishonourned. Once the cheque issued by the assessee is encashed, in the light of the decisions referred supra, the payment relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.
Vs.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
OFFHAND
Any payment, of debt or dues, statutory or contractual,- which as per the governing provision of law such as, IT Act herein,or provision in a contract agreement, – which is permissible to be made, either explicitly or implicitly,by cheque,the duty to pay , even under general principle founded on common sense, must be considered to have been discharged on which the instrument is tendered to / received by the payee. If so, it is incomprehensible that there could be a different view validly canvassed or taken. Even so,this point, as is remembered,has been repeatedly brought up off and on for resolution. mainly because of something to the contrary in the Treasury Rules , also in certain decided cases (one such case was adversely decided by AAR), and departmental circulars. To prevent repetitive disputes and vexing litigation, the correct position in law indicated as above, must be made quite clear once for all.
Quite right view of the hon court.
I would add that Revenue takes a tax on the taxable income only but nowhere in taxation principle that the assessee pays only tax when so why do you need interest first of all as that interest is not the taxable income at all, when so very levy of interest should be not to be a levied by revenue, as interest is not the taxable income of the assessee… the revenue cannot get illegal gain on taxable income from the very assesse himself.
concept of interest is a on a person who takes a loan from some one else and not on his own moneys being the very principle when tested the assessee had not taken the money on loan from the revenue when so how revenue get interest is the basic question…that arises, so very sec /234C should be quashed under doctrine of severability and that is indeed natural justice under rule of law!, is my opinion would be had i been on SC bench i would have given my opinion dissenting allowing of interest to revenue, as courts are not concerned with revenue of any government! that would have pushed the issue to 5 member SC benches to fresh consideration of the law under the anvil of Art 265 of the constitution of india which says ..’due process principle of law….’!