THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- LTU MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/4994/2010HC Bombay11 August 2011Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.A. SAYED4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest under section 244A for the entire month of December 2003. The reasoning was that payment of tax by cheque is permissible, and the payment is considered complete when the authorized agent of the Central Government debits the assessee's bank account. In this case, the assessee's account was debited on December 30, 2003. The Tribunal found that any delay by the authorized agent in crediting the amount to the Central Government's account does not negate the fact that the assessee had made the payment. Therefore, the relevant date for calculating interest under section 244A(1)(b) is the date of payment (December 30, 2003), not the date of credit to the government account. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the revenue, stating they did not address the specific scope of 'payment of tax' under section 244A(1)(b). The operative direction was to answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Asian Paints Ltd., is in appeal against the Income Tax Commissioner (LTU). The assessment year involved is the block period 1-4-1995 to 21-3-2002. The assessee paid a tax demand by cheque on December 29, 2003. The assessee's bank account was debited on December 30, 2003. Following the setting aside of the block assessment order by the CIT(A), the assessee became entitled to a refund. The Assessing Officer granted interest under section 244A from January 2004, but denied interest for December 2003, stating the tax was credited to the Central Government account on January 1, 2004. The CIT(A) and subsequently the ITAT ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that interest was payable for December 2003.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that interest was payable to the assessee under section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the month of December, 2003, even though the amount of tax paid by the assessee was credited to the Central Government Account on 1st January, 2004? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that payment of tax is complete when the amount is debited from their bank account by an authorized agent of the Central Government, which occurred on December 30, 2003. They relied on the principle that the date of payment, not the date of credit to the government account, is relevant for calculating interest under section 244A. They also referred to Circular No. 261 dated August 8, 1979, supporting the view that the date of presenting the cheque should be the date of payment. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that interest under section 244A is payable only from January 2004 because the tax amount was actually credited to the Central Government account on January 1, 2004. They relied on decisions from the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sutlej Industries Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A,Section 244A(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 itxa4494.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 4994 OF 2010 The Income Tax Commissioner-LTU ...Appellant. Vs. M/s Asian Paints Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Subhash Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 1. Not on board. Taken up on board by consent of the parties. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in holding that interest was payable to the assessee under section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the month of December, 2003, even though the amount of tax paid by the assessee was credited to the Central Government Account on 1st January, 2004?” 3. The A.Y. Involved herein is the block period 1-4-1995 to 21-3-2002. 4. In the present case, tax demand raised under the block assessment was CNR No : HCBM020087602009 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:00:32

2 itxa4494.10.sxw paid by the assessee by depositing a cheque for the amount of tax demanded on 29th December, 2003 in the bank authorized by the Central Government. On 30th December, 2003, the Bank account of the assessee was debited by the amount of tax under the cheque deposited on 29th December, 2003. 5. As the block assessment order was set aside by CIT(A),the assessee become entitled to refund of tax paid. The Assessing Officer refunded the tax with interest under section 244(A) of the Act from January, 2004 till grant of refund. The assessing officer declined to grant interest for the month of December, 2003 on the ground that the tax paid by the assessee was credited to Central Government Account on 1st January, 2004. 6. On appeal filed by the Assessing officer the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to interest from the month of December, 2003 on the ground that the amount of tax offered was debited to bank account of the assessee on 30th December, 2003. On further appeal filed by the revenue, the ITAT by the impugned order upheld the decision of CIT(A). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 7. According to the Counsel for the revenue, though the assessee had deposited the cheque towards the tax demand on 29th December, 2003, the amount was actually credited to the Central Government account on 1st January, 2004 and therefore, on grant of refund, the assessee was entitled to interest from January, 2004. In support of the above contention, Counsel for the revenue relied upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 274 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:00:32

3 itxa4494.10.sxw CIT Vs. Sutlej Industries Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 331. 8. Under section 244A (1)(b) of the Act, interest on refund is payable from the date of payment of tax to the date on which refund is granted. In the present case, admittedly the cheque for the amount of tax demanded was deposited with the authorized agent of the Central Government on 29th December, 2003 and the account of the assessee was debited to that extent on 30th December, 2003. The question therefore, to be considered is, whether debiting the tax amount from the bank account of the assessee by the authorized agent of the Central Government account viz. the authorized bank constitutes payment of tax under section 244(A)(i)(b) of the Act? 9. It is not in dispute that the payment of tax by cheque is a permissible mode of payment. It is not in dispute that the assessee had deposited the cheque towards the tax amount in the bank which was authorized by the Central Government to collect the tax on behalf of the revenue. It is not in dispute that the authorized agent of the Central Government had debited the amount of tax from the bank account of the assessee on 30-12-2003. Once the authorized agent of the Central Government collects the tax by debiting the bank account of the assessee, the payment of tax to the Central Government would be complete. The fact that there is delay on the part of the authorized agent to credit that amount to the account of the Central Government, it cannot be said that the payment of tax is not made by the assessee, till the amount of tax is credited to the account of the Central Government. For calculating interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act the relevant date is the date of payment of tax and not the date on which the amount of tax collected is credited to the account of the Central Government Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:00:32

4 itxa4494.10.sxw by the agent of the Central Government. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee had paid the taxes on 30th December, 2003 cannot be faulted. 10. Once it is found that the tax was paid on 30th December, 2003, then as per the rule 119A(b), of the Income Tax Rules, on the tax becoming refundable, the assessee had to be refunded tax with interest for the entire month of December, 2003. Thus, in the facts of the present case, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee that the tax was paid on 30-12-2003 & therefore, the tax was liable to be refunded with interest for the entire month of December, 2003. 11. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court, as also the decision of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the Counsel for the revenue are distinguishable on the facts as in both the above cases, the Courts were not called upon to consider the scope of the expression 'payment of tax' contained under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act. In fact, the circular No.261 dated 8th August, 1979 issued by the Board to the effect that the date of presenting the cheque should be the date of payment supports the contention of the assessee. 12. In the result, the question raised in the appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:00:32 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →