TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition is that there was an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and on another view, even if the cheques were taken conditionally, the cheques not having been dishonoured but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of payments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques’ - Once the cheque issued by the assessee is encashed, the payment relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque – no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against revenue. - T. C. (A). No. 601 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. R. Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the plea of the assessee regarding charging of interest under Section 234C of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the date of presentation of cheque should be treated as date of payment of tax and held no interest under Section 234C of the Act is to be charged. The other plea raised by the assessee were rejected. 2.3. Assailing the said order, the assessee and the Department preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals. 2.4. Calling in question the said order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed this appeal on the substantial question of law, referred supra. 3. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amounted to a conditional payment of the debt; the condition being that the cheque or bill should be duly met or honoured at the proper date. If that be the true view, then I think the position is exactly as if an agreement had been expressly made that the bill or cheque should operate as payment unless defeated by dishonour or by not being met; and I think that that agreement is implied from giving and taking the cheques and bills in question.' The following observations of Lord Maugham in Rhokana Corporation v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, 1938 AC 380 are also opposite: 'Apart from the express terms of Section 33 sub-section 1, a similar conclusion might be founded on the well-known common law rules as to the effect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
