9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984 that major portion of the estate consisted of Fixed Deposits, which were not maturing in the near future, and have to be foreclosed, which would result in substantial loss of interest and that would be detrimental to the estate. It was also stated that part of the shareholding consisted of unquoted shares and being unquoted, it would take to find a purchaser. Considering all the above, time was requested for remitting the duty at least upto 31st March 1985. The Assistant Controller replied on 4th Sept., 1984 that the accountable person was permitted to pay the provisional demand of Rs. 1,99,389 in half yearly instalments of Rs. 25,000 each subject to payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The first instalment, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fallen due, interest should not have been levied and, therefore, pleaded for the exclusion of the amount of Rs. 4,643. A letter was filed before the Appellate Controller dt. 12th July 1985 setting out the facts in some detail. The Appellate Controller held that following the decision of the Madras High Court in Rajyam pictures vs. Addl CIT, Madras 1978 CTR (Mad) 319 : (1978) 114 ITR 847 (Mad), no appeal lay to the Appellate Controller against the charging of interest, though the said decision was rendered under the I.T. Act, as long as no other point was agitated in appeal. He, therefore, dismissed, the appeal in limine. Aggrieved, the accountable person is in appeal before us. 4. The accountable person submitted that the ratio of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble, was competent to prefer an appeal to the Appellant Controller against the order determining the estate duty payable at such amount, The accountable person had sought for exclusion from the amount described in the assessment order as estate duty payable as Rs. 8,271, interest of Rs. 4,643. On the facts, therefore, we hold that the appellate controller was not justified in dismissing the appeal In limine. After from this, on merits, the accountable person had expressed difficulties in liquidating the provisional demand of Rs. 1,99,389 immediately and had sought for time at least till 31st March, 1986 by the letter of 23rd Aug., 1984. Under the scheme of instalment of Rs. 25,000 per annum, though subject to payment of interest at 15 per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 starting from 25th Dec., 1984 but when the entire dues were liquidated before 25th Dec., 1984 itself, we consider that this is a fit case where no interest need have been levied when the final order was passed because the accountable person could liquidate the amount only apparently by premature encashment of fixed deposits, etc. which was done and which would have been at a financial loss to the estate. In the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that even in a case where it is lawful to impose penalty, penalty need not be imposed where the default is venial or technical. i.e., pardonable or technical. The present is not a case where any penalty is impossable, It is not even a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
