9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992. Both L.P.A. No. 172 of 1993 and Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 were heard together and decided by a common judgment dated July 29, 1994. We agreed with the finding recorded by the learned single judge that the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 were guilty of contempt of court for having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this court. However, we did not agree with the sentence imposed by the learned single judge. Hence, we altered the sentence by directing that the appellants in the contempt appeal should be detained in civil prison for a period of two months. The imposition of fine was also affirmed. It was also further ordered that the detention would come to an end no sooner than the amount is deposited as ordered in the case or paid to the plaintiffs in the suit. However, the appellants in the contempt appeal undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before August 1, 1994. Therefore, we postponed the enforcement of the order and directed the matter to be called on August 1, 1994, at 2.15 p.m. On August 1, 1994, when the matter was called, the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and as requested by both sides we adjourned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 shall immediately bring it to the notice of the court by filing a memo after serving a copy to learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994, the default committed by the appellants and seek appropriate orders for the implementation of our judgment dated July 29, 1994. In the event without any default the directions are complied with, that shall also be reported to this court for passing orders as to the implementation of the judgment dated July 29, 1994." It is reported to us that the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 have been paying the amounts accordingly. In the meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer TDS, Madras-600 006, has issued a notice dated September 1994, to the appellants in the contempt appeal, which reads thus : "As per section 194-I of the Income-tax Act newly introduced with effect from June 1, 1994, any person other than an individual and a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying any income by way of rent exceeding Rs. 1,20,000 during the financial year shall at the time of credit in the account/payment/making adjustment, etc., whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax at source, at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the order of the court ; as such there was no scope left to them to comply with section 194-I of the Act. As there was sufficient cause for them in not complying with the provisions of section 194-1, suitable directions may be issued to the Department in this regard to permit them to deduct 20 per cent. of the amount paid. Learned counsel for the respondents in this petition submits that as the annual rent payable for the premises in question by the petitioners exceeds Rs. 1,20,000, the provisions of section 194-I are attracted in respect of the rent payable for the financial year 1994-95, i.e., for the period from April 1, 1994, to March 31, 1995, and also for subsequent years. It is further contended that the arrears of rent relatable to the period prior or up to March 31, 1994, even though paid subsequent to June 1, 1994, cannot be subjected to the provisions contained in section 194-I, because if the rents would have been paid during that period, no such deduction could have been made. Therefore, by the mere fact that the payment has been made subsequent to June 1, 1994, the provisions of section 194-I cannot be applied to it. If applied, that would amount to applying the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to more than Rs. 1,20,000 this section is not attracted. It is also not attracted to a case where the person responsible for paying the rent is an individual or a Hindu undivided family. In the instant case, the person responsible to pay the rent is not an individual or a Hindu undivided family, but it is a private limited company. The annual rent payable is more than Rs. 1,20,000. Thus, the provisions of section 194-I are attracted to the case on hand from the date it has come into force covering the period from April 1, 1994. It is because the definition of the expression "financial year" according to the Act means from April 1, to March 31, in the succeeding year. Therefore, even though section 194-1 has come into effect from June 1, 1994, it covered the rents payable from April 1, 1994. The next question for consideration is as to whether the arrears relating to the period prior to April 1, 1994, but paid subsequent to June 1, 1994, are also subject to deduction of 20 per cent. Once it is held that the provisions of section 194-I are attracted to the case on hand as the annual rent in the instant case exceeds Rs. 1,20,000 and the person responsible to pay the rent is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
