Skip to content


A. K. Bashu Sahib Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Vellore. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 4 of 1963
Reported in[1967]66ITR20(Mad)
AppellantA. K. Bashu Sahib
RespondentFirst Income-tax Officer, Vellore.
Excerpt:
.....laid down under section 13(4) only if the tribunal declares that the action taken already is in accordance with the provisions of the securitisation act and the rules made thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide..........mr. swaminathan for the assessee relies on the fact that under section 212(1), it is open to an assessee to send an estimate at any time before the last installment is due and says that the estimate in this case having been sent on september 1, 1962, itself, he is entitled to pay the first installment due on that date in accordance with his estimate. this contention fails to take note of the requirement that, in order to enable the assessee to do that, he must have sent his estimate before and not on the date that particular installment becomes due.on that view, the petition is dismissed with costs. counsels fee, rs. 150.petition dismissed.
Judgment:

VEERASWAMI J. - This petition for prohibition turns on a very short point as to whether an estimate of income and tax made and sent on a due date for payment of advance tax installment will entitle the assessee to pay the same in accordance with that estimate and not as per demand of advance tax. The last completed assessment on the assessee was for the assessment year 1959-60. The tax assessed for that year was Rs. 1,37,349.26. On August 13, 1962 by a notice of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee was asked to pay the advance tax for the accounting year 1962-63 on the basis of the earlier assessment. On August 30, 1962, his auditor made an estimate of the income and probable tax payable for that year. But this was not in the form prescribed under section 212(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was only the next day the assessee sent an estimate in the prescribed form but that reached the Income-tax Officer on September 5, 1962, as the interval, as it is stated, happened to be holidays. The contention for the assessee is that he is entitled to pay even the first installment of the advance tax demanded in accordance with this estimate.

We are clearly of opinion that we cannot accept the view of the assessee. Sections 210 to 212 and 218 of the Act, read together, make it manifest that, in order that an assessee may pay a particular installment of advance tax in accordance with his estimate, the estimate must be sent in the prescribed form before the date on which that installment became due. This is clear from the first part of section 212(1) which is followed up in section 218(1). The latter provision indicates when an assessee can be regarded as a defaulter. It says that if an estimate is not sent before the date on which an installment becomes due and fails to pay the tax as per demand, he will be regarded as a defaulter. But Mr. Swaminathan for the assessee relies on the fact that under section 212(1), it is open to an assessee to send an estimate at any time before the last installment is due and says that the estimate in this case having been sent on September 1, 1962, itself, he is entitled to pay the first installment due on that date in accordance with his estimate. This contention fails to take note of the requirement that, in order to enable the assessee to do that, he must have sent his estimate before and not on the date that particular installment becomes due.

On that view, the petition is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee, Rs. 150.

Petition dismissed.


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