| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | A.K. Sikri J., Rohinton Fali Nariman J. |
| SECTION(S): | 234B |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | 234B interest, advance tax |
| COUNSEL: | Guru Krishna Kumar, Shipra Ghosh |
| DATE: | August 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | August 17, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 1992-93 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 234B interest is automatic if conditions are met. Form I.T.N.S. 150 is a part of the assessment order and it is sufficient if the levy of interest is stated there | |
The assessment order did not contain any direction for the payment of interest. The ITAT and the Delhi High Court held that since no direction had actually been given in the assessment order for payment of interest, the case was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Ranchi Club Ltd’ [(2001) 247 ITR 209] which merely dismissed the appeal affirming the High Court judgment reported in ‘Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax’ [(1996) 217 ITR 72]. The Department claimed before the Supreme Court that in view of the decision in ‘Kalyankumar Ray v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta [1992 Supp (2) SCC 424] interest under Section 234B is part of Form I.T.N.S. 150 which is not only signed by the assessing officer but it is really part of the assessment order itself. HELD by the Supreme Court allowing the appeal:
It will be seen that under the provisions of Section 234B, the moment an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax has failed to pay such tax or where the advance tax paid by such an assessee is less than 90 per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee becomes liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of the month. The levy of such interest is automatic when the conditions of Section 234B are met. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision contained in Kalyankumar Ray’s case inasmuch as it is undisputed that contained a calculation of interest payable on the tax assessed. This being the case, it is clear that as per the said judgment, this Form must be treated as part of the assessment order in the wider sense in which the expression has to be understood in the context of Section 143, which is referred to in Explanation 1 to Section 234B. This being the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
THOUGH AGREE, I LIKE TO RAISE A QUESTION, TAX LEVY IS NOT IN REAL TERMS NOT EARNED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE REVENUE… BUT NOTIONALLY ONLY. SAY IF THERE IS NO SUCH COY HOW REVENUE COULD EARN TAX, TELL ME. YOU SAY UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 AS AMENDED A COMPANY IS FLOATED, EVEN WITHOUT GOVT THE VENDOR OF VEGETABLES BRINGS FRUITS, AND OTHER THINGS, SO THE CREATOR IS AGRICULTURIST, HORTICULTURIST, MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER BY LITERAL HARD PHYSICAL WORK AND BY HIS MARKETING ABILITIES THAT NEED TO BE DIFFERENT EVERY YEAR OR SO, WHEN SO REVENUE JUST ASKS YOU PAY TAXES AND ALSO INTEREST, UNDER NOTIONAL CLAIMS…WHEN SO WHY THE VERY GOVERNMENT NEED NOT PAY INTEREST ON TAX MONEYS THE GOVT TOOK FROM THE TAX PAYER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUALITY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, WHERE THAT RIGHT IS GONE AWAY AND WHY SO ONE NEEDS TO ASK ONESELF SO TOO THE GOVERNMENTS TOO… HOW THEY GOT RIGHT FOR FREE TAX MONEYS, JUST BECAUSE YOU DECIDED THAT NOTIONALLY.
YOU AS A CITIZEN OR LEGAL PERSON PAY FOR OPENING SAVINGS BANK OR CURRENT ACCOUNT, SOME FIXED AMOUNT, AND HE OR IT IS BEING FORCED TO MAINTAIN THAT MINIMUM AS IF IT IS OWN MONEY OF THE BANKS, DO YOU THINK IT IS A FAIR AND FINE PRACTICE, THE COURTS NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES, NO POINT JUST BEING AN YES MAN TO ALL ARBITRARY LAWS FLOATED BY THE SO CALLED GOVERNMENTS THEN THE FORMS THAT IS MENTIONED HERE, IS IT REALLY A FAIR AND ADMIRABLE PRACTICE, WHEN ART 51 A IS IN PLACE AS A OBLIGATION OF EVERY GOVT SERVANT WHY EVERY MINISTER, WHAT KIND OF LAW WE CALL THIS AS A RULE OF LAW.
IF A COMPANY IS TAXED RIGHT AND LEFT AND CENTRE, THEN BANKS TAKE AWAY INTEREST RATES AND PENAL INTERESTS AND THE LIKE BESIDES OTHER CREDITORS, DO WE TREAT A CITIZEN OR A LEGAL PERSON JUST SOME SLAVE, WHILE SLAVERY IS SAID TO BE ABOLISHED IN ANY VIBRANT DEMOCRACY..
SO I FIND INTERPRETATION OF LAWS OR STATUTES NEED BE BASED ON FAIR AND FREE MANNER BENEFICIAL TO BOTH THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY, IS MY THINK, THIS IS NOT POSTED AS AN OFFENCE TO ANY BUT A THOUGHT PROGRESSION THAT NEED BE ADDRESSED BY TOP JUDICIARY TOO,POLITICIANS WOULD NOT AS THEY BELIEVE IN AUTHORITATIVE ROBBING OF CITIZENS THOUGH CITIZENS ARE DEJURE,BUT ALL, OTHER SET UO IS JUST SOME ART 12 FORMATIONS WITH DEFACTO POWER BUT DEFACTO POWER IS REALLY OVER RULING THE DEJURE POWER THAT IS SOVEREIGN IS IT NOT SIRS?