Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.J. Fernandez - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference case No. 45 of 1980
Judge
Reported in(1987)60CTR(Kar)143; [1986]160ITR602(KAR); [1986]160ITR602(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN450(Kar)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 214 and 263
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentG.J. Fernandez
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasan and ;H. Raghavendra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateK.R. Prasad and ;K. Ramanjulu, Advs.
Excerpt:
- section 26: [ram mohan reddy,j] custody of child rejection of application made under order 7, rule 11 (a) c.p.c., - order passed by family court - decree of divorce by mutual consent and childs custody in terms of the compromise - difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -separate application by the parties under section 26 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for custody of the child - petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the apex court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- application filed by the respondent under section 26 of the act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006. petitioners objections - at..........march 12, 1970; (ii) march 12, 1970; and (iii) march 15, 1970. those cheques were received by the assessing officer on march 16, 1970, and they were also encashed. the assessing officer allowed interest on the excess of advance tax under section 214. in other words, he proceeded on the basis that the assessee has paid the advance tax within the stipulated time. 4. but the commissioner thought otherwise. under section 263, he revised the order of assessment holding that the assessee paid the tax only on march 16, 1970 and, therefore, he was not entitled to interest under section 214. he was under the impression that the assessee made a belated payment of the advance tax. 5. before the tribunal, there was no dispute that the last date for payment of advance tax was march 15, 1970. which.....
Judgment:

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1.The following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'

2. The facts in extenso have been set out in the statement of the case, out of which we may set out only those that are just relevant

3. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee was required to pay advance tax on or before March 15, 1970. He paid the same by three cheques dated : (i) March 12, 1970; (ii) March 12, 1970; and (iii) March 15, 1970. Those cheques were received by the assessing officer on March 16, 1970, and they were also encashed. The assessing officer allowed interest on the excess of advance tax under section 214. In other words, he proceeded on the basis that the assessee has paid the advance tax within the stipulated time.

4. But the Commissioner thought otherwise. Under section 263, he revised the order of assessment holding that the assessee paid the tax only on March 16, 1970 and, therefore, he was not entitled to interest under section 214. He was under the impression that the assessee made a belated payment of the advance tax.

5. Before the Tribunal, there was no dispute that the last date for payment of advance tax was March 15, 1970. which was a Sunday and the payment was made by the assessee by cheques on March 16, 1970, which was held to be a valid payment. There is also no dispute that the three cheques issued by the assessee were handed over to the assessing officer on March 16, 1970. They were local cheques drawn on a local bank and were duly honoured and the amounts realised were credited to the Government account.

6. On these facts, one cannot come to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to interest under section 214 which was rightly allowed by the assessing officer.

7. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //