9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/Del/2013 The grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as under:- "1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad on facts and in law. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in noting that Circular No. 261 dated 08.08.1979 is not binding and has further erred in noting that OLTAS system has replaced the tax payments and that the circular no. 261 issued in 1979 is not binding on the Department. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in ignoring the facts of the case including the copies of the challan, bank statements to show that the payments were debited in the bank account before the due date and the clarification received from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue produced before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that i) Circulars are binding on CPC; ii) Circular No. 261 of 1979 is still valid and not being over-ruled; iii) Officers of Direct Taxes are borne by this circular. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the interest of Rs. 25,512/- levied u/s 234C." 5. The appellant craves leave to add, am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation before rejecting the application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, by critically nothing "THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO USE THE SOFTWARE UTILITY AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE http://www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in FOR ENTERING AND UPLOADING THE ONLINE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION" especially when the rectification application has been done online." 7. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee cited the Central Treasury Rules and the Circular No.261 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short 'CBDT') and prayed that date of tendering of the cheque for tax payment should be treated as date of tax payment for the purpose of computing interest u/s 234C rather than the date of clearing of the cheque. The assessee also submitted details of the dates of tendering of cheques and clearing of the same, which is reproduced as under:- Due date Date cheque tendered Debited to assessee's bank A/c Date of challan as per 26AS Amount 15.09.2008 12.09.2008 15.09.2008 16.09.2008 4,20,000 15.12.2008 12.12-2008 15.12.2008 16.12.2009 3,00,000 15.03.2009 12,03.2009 14.03.2009 17.03.2009 5,00,000 8. The CIT(A) , relying on the new procedure of giving tax credit i.e. Online Tax Accountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oftware for the OLTAS. Under the new procedure, banks were advised to issue acknowledgement in respect of Challan tendered with clearing cheques/drafts (i.e. other than cash and transfer cheques/drafts) only after-the realization of such cheques/drafts. Banks were further advised to issue paper token in respect of such Challan indicating the date offender and the date on which the counterfoil will be kept for delivery. The receiving banker was advised to return the tear-off portion of taxpayers' counterfoil on realization of such cheques/drafts after branding with the rubber stamp acknowledging the payment with Challan Identification Number (CIN) comprising of the following: i. BSR Code number of the bank branch (7 digits) ii. Date of presentation of the Challan (DD/MM/YY) iii. Serial number of the Challan in that branch on that day (5 digits) It was further advised that the new accounting procedure under OLTAS will replace the existing procedure in so far as the sending of scrolls and Challan to the Income Tax Department is concerned. Thus the interest has been computed as per this duly approved new procedure and as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Corpn. 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 the sending of a cheque in payment of a debt, and in the fact that though the payment is subject to the condition subsequent that the cheque must be met on presentation, the date of payment, if the cheque is duly met, is the date when the cheque was posted.' In the case before us none of the cheques has been dishonoured on presentation and payment cannot, therefore, be said to have been defeated by the happening of the condition subsequent, namely, dishonoured by non-payment and that being so there can be no question, therefore, that the assessee did not receive payment by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
