9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act was issued on 16th October, 1966, requiring the assessee to pay Rs. 88,116 less a sum of Rs. 32,644 already paid. The assessee thereafter paid Rs. 16,322 on 22nd October, 1966 ; Rs. 16,322 on 27th December, 1966, and RS. 11,414 on 26th January, 1967. The assessee further gave cheques of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 10,000 to the ITO on 20th March, 1967, and 23rd March, 1967. These two cheques were not sent for collection by the ITO in the month of March, 1967, but were sent for collection in April, 1967, which were actually encashed on 15th April, 1967. A further amount of Rs. 14,058 was due to the assessee as a result of the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1964-65, and this amount was adjusted against the outstanding advance tax pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch, 1967, constituted payment on the said dates under s. 210 of the Act. Along with these payments of the sums of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 10,000 and that of Rs. 76,702 made between 23rd September, 1966, to 26th January, 1967, the total payment under s. 210 of the Act amounted to Rs. 1,06,702. The Tribunal held that against the total demand of tax determined on regular assessment at Rs. 1,06,828 the assessee had paid Rs. 1,06,702. It was, therefore, held that advance tax paid on the regular assessment did not exceed the amount of tax determined at the regular assessment and that the assessee was not entitled to any interest under s. 214 of the Act. However, the Tribunal further held that since in appeal the final figure of tax was determined at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of receipt of the cheques the amount would have been received immediately thereafter. Admittedly, the ITO did not send the cheques for encashment till 15th April, 1967, on which date they were actually encashed. The assessee cannot be held to be liable for non-payment of the amount in time when he handed over the cheques to the ITO who failed to encash the same forthwith. We have, therefore, no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal and, thus, this question is answered in the affirmative. As regards question No. 2, we are of the opinion that this question has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We have very carefully perused s. 214 of the Act and find that the said provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
