Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3078 = 1972 PTD 440
Allahabad High Court
Special Appeal No. 601 of 1961, decided on 27th April 1966.
Presented By: Jagdish Sahai and B. D. Gupta, JJ
Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1963) 48 I T R 1 (S C) ref. P. N. Pachauri for Appellant. R. L. Gulati for
Respondent.

P. C. DWADESH SHRENI & Co. LTD.

VERSUS

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, ALIGARH

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: I8-A(6), (8)

Income-tax-Advance tax-Interest on deficiency-Demand by officer-No payment by assessee as refund was due-Interest charged on balance due after adjustment of refund-Whether justified-"No payment of tax has been made"-Whether includes partial non-payment- Whether separate order levying interest necessary-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. I8-A(6), (8). The expression "no payment of tax has been made" in section 18-A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is comprehensive enough to include a case of partial non-payment. That expression means "when the amount due has not been paid" whatever be that amount, whole or part. It is not necessary that a separate order awarding interest must be passed and the law stands fully complied with when in the assessment form not only the amount determined in the regular assessment but also the amount calculated under subsection (8) read with subsection (6) of section 18-A has been shown. The view of Brij Lal Gupta, J. (1962) 46 I T R 586 that adjustment towards refund due does not amount to payment within the meaning of section 18-A disapproved.   JUDGMENT JAGDISH SAHAI, J.--This special appeal is directed against the judgment of Brij Lal Gupta, J. dated September 6, 1961 ((1962) 46 I T R 586), dismissing Writ Petition No. 483 of 1957 filed by the appellant petitioner, Messrs P. C. Dawadesh Shreni & Company Limited, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the company). The Income-tax officer demanded a certain amount of money as advanced payment of income-tax under section 18-A of the income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from the company. Admittedly, the company did not pay any part of the demand. The stand taken by it was that, being entitled to a certain refund and the amount of refund being in excess of the demand, no payment was required to be made. In the writ petition and the affidavit filed in support of it, an averment was made that the sum of Rs. 7,415-5-0 out of the amount which the company was entitled to receive as refund was adjusted by the Income-tax Officer towards the payment of advance income-tax demanded from the company. This position is admitted on behalf…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register