9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial year. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) further failed to note the claim that discounting charges, represent only the interest payable for a specified period. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that if the assessee does not resort to this facility of discounting, he has to necessarily go on for loans on which he has to pay interest. 5. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the Madras High Court's decision in 146 ITR 479 and held that the assessee should be visited with the levy of interest under section 201(1A) for its failure to comply with the provisions of section 194A. 2. Let us first take up the appeal in ITA No. 3060 (Mad.)/1992 relating to the assessment year 1985-86. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that during the accounting year under consideration the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 2,97,958 towards interest, but had not deducted and paid any tax to the Central Government under the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why interest as required under section 201(1A) should not be charged. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reed from this view and held that they were not in the nature of interest payments. According to the learned counsel for the assessee cheque discounting charges are not interest simpliciter and therefore the TDS provisions are not attracted. He also contended that the payees in these cases have also shown these items as income and paid tax on the same. Further be contended that among the submissions made before the Income-tax Officer one was that the assessee could not deduct tax due to paucity of funds and they were making more borrowals from year after year to sustain themselves in business and this disabled them in complying with the TDS provisions. He submitted that this point was elaborately explained and reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Sivakami Finance Ltd. v. ITO (ITAT-Madras). According to him the Income-tax Officer did not discuss this in his order. Though the same was reiterated before the Commissioner (Appeals), he also did not touch this point. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied on the following judicial pronouncements to contend that where the amount of tax was fully paid by the other party, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charging section. This view is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the machinery section fails in the present case. Now we have to consider whether the Assessing Officer was right in substituting 'the date of the assessment order' in place of 'the date on which such tax is actually paid' for computing the impugned interest. It is not permissible for the court to read into a taxing provision any words which are not there or exclude any which are there. The words found in the provision must be given their natural meaning. This view is supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CED v. R. Kanakasabai [1973] 89 ITR 251 and Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345. There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. The normal rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount credited to party's account directly put together works out as under Particulars Assessment year 1986-87 1987-88 Amount (interest) credited to T.V. Rs. Ps. Rs . Ps. Kandasamy Sah & Sons 9,600 9,946.58 Interest credited to interest payable acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntext of prosecution, we do find that the above ratio is equally applicable in the case on hand. Hence we are with the learned departmental representative that even though the interest was credited to the interest payable account, the assessee was liable to deduct tax the moment the same was credited to such account. Also the learned counsel for the assessee has placed on record xerox copies of challans evidencing payment of the tax deducted at source into the Indian Overseas Bank on 27-2-1990 in the following sums 1986-87 Rs. 42,281 1987-88 Rs. 19,755 The fact that the assessee had paid the amount into the treasury as detailed above could drive us to the inference that the assessee had impliedly accepted the theory that even though the interest was credited to interest payable account the assessee was liable to deduct at source as per section 194A. Hence we direct the Assessing Officer to levy interest un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
