9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this combined order. None has appeared for and on behalf of respondent No.1. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners of petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm. The petitioners, during the years under consideration, namely, assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 deducted interest of different amounts payable to Shiv Kishan Shiv Narain, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar on their deposits/securities. They credited the interest payable account and subsequently the account of the creditor. The petitioners duly paid, within the prescribed time, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a fresh penal liability and, therefore, in the scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that it was simply an Explanation to the existing provisions of the statute. Mr. Khandelwal thus submitted that in view of the position of law as it stood and was understood by the parties before its amendment with effect from June 1, 1987, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence under section 276B of the Act of 1961 as they had paid the tax due on the interest payable/paid to the creditor, within the specified time. In support of his contention, Mr. Khandelwal has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 237. I find force in Mr. Khandelwal's arguments. An Explanation bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an option to the assessee to pay tax on the interest payable/paid within the specified period of crediting the interest amount to the account of the creditor or to interest payable account or suspense account, as the case may be. Since the assessee could have reasonably held the opinion that he may pay the due tax on such amount of interest within the specified period after crediting the same to the account of the creditor, which is the position in the present cases, the petitioners could have acted in the manner they did. They are thus found not to have committed the offence under section 194A punishable under section 276B of Act of 1961. This view, I think is endorsed by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of CIT v. Oriental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
