9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was a refund of tax amounting to Rs. 61,060. In this order, the ITO mentioned that the assessee-company was entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act, as pointed out by the Commissioner (A) in his order. However, while issuing the refund order, the ITO did not allow the interest due u/s 214 on this amount of Rs. 61,060. By their application dt. 23rd February, 1980, the assessee's Chartered Accountants pointed out this mistake committed by the ITO, while issuing the refund order, and requested him to rectify the said mistake, as a mistake apparent from the record and issue the refund order for the interest amount due u/s 214, on the amount of Rs. 61,060. 3. By his letter dt. 7th August, 1980, the ITO rejected the assessee's claim holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979) 118 ITR 525 (Bom), that the ITO had to allow interest u/s 214 in respect of the amount for which he had given credit for advance-tax paid, though, in his opinion, it might have been paid a few days later. He held that the ITO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application u/s 154 of the Act for rectification. It is from this order of the Commissioner (A) that the revenue has filed the present appeal to the Tribunal. 5. Shri Prashant Ray, the ld. departmental representative, submitted that Commissioner (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee's claim for interest, as there could be conceiveably two opinions on the admissibility of interest u/s 214 of the Act and that, therefore, s. 154 of the Act would be inapplicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque to the payee or the payee's agent or his authorised bank to receive payment on behalf of the payee. In CIT, Bombay South, Bombay vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., (1954) 25 ITR 529 (Bom), their Lordships of the Supreme Court were examining the question as to whether any income, profits or gains, in respect of the sales made to the Government of India, were received in British India by the assessee, within the meaning of s. 4(1) (a) of the Indian IT Act, 1922. Their Lordships held that in one view of the matter there was, in the circumstances of that case, an implied agreement under which the cheques were accepted unconditionally as payment and, on another view, even if the cheques were taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition filed by the revenue u/s 256(2) of the Act, taking a similar view in CIT, Tamil Nadu vs. Kumudam Publications (P) Ltd, (1981) 21 CTR (Mad) 333 : (1981) 128 ITR 617 (Mad). In the said case, the assessee paid into the Reserve Bank of India on 14th December, 1973 a cheque for Rs. 4,30,500 towards advance-tax payable on 15th December, 1973. As this cheque was realised by the Reserve Bank only on 21st December, 1973, the ITO did not treat this as payment of advance-tax. The AAC, in appeal, held that the payment should be taken into account as payment of advance-tax and the Tribunal agreed with him. Dismissing the revenu's petition filed u/s 256(2), the High Court held that in view of the Treasury Rules, when cheques were handed over to Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
