Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 126 (KER)

Yesoda v. ITO, Cannaore

1965-06-08

P.GOVINDA NAIR

body1965
Judgment :- 1. The short question arising for decision in this writ application is whether the stand taken by the respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Cannanore, that interest is payable on the income tax imposed on the petitioner, for which a notice of demand under S.156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued, from the day commencing after the end of the period of 35 days from the service of notice or within the expiry of such period as is fixed by the Income Tax Officer under the proviso to S.220(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, notwithstanding that there was an order of stay of collection of the tax passed by the High Court during the pendency of a writ application, O.P. 2265/1962, is correct. 2. The question for decision depends on the interpretation of S.220 as well as the orders of stay passed by the High Court which have been produced as Exts. P2 and P3. 3. The relevant part of S.220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, namely sub-Ss. 1 and 2 are in these terms: "220. When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default- (1) Any amount, otherwise than by way of advance tax, specified as payable in a notice of demand under S.156 shall be paid within thirty five days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice: "Provided that, where the Income-tax Officer has any reason to believe that it will be detrimental to revenue if the full period of thirty-five days aforesaid is allowed, he may, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, direct that the sum specified in the notice of demand shall be paid within such period being a period less than the period of thirty-five days aforesaid, as may be specified by him in the notice of demand. (2) If the amount specified in any notice of demand under S.156 is not paid within the period limited under sub-section (1), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at four per cent per annum from the day commencing after the end of the period mentioned in sub-section (1)." 4. It appears to me that on the expiry of 35 days from the service of the notice under S.156 interest becomes payable at four per cent as enacted by S.220(1). It appears to me that on the expiry of 35 days from the service of the notice under S.156 interest becomes payable at four per cent as enacted by S.220(1). Of course interest may become payable from an earlier date if such a direction is made by the Income Tax Officer under the proviso to S.220(1). Whatever that be, interest automatically accrues after the expiry of such period. This statutory provision cannot be negatived and was not intended to be negatived by the orders of stay passed by the High Court evidenced by Exts. P-2 and P-3 in O.P. 2265 of 1962. It is also clear from the wording of Exts. P-2 and P-3 that what has been stayed by the High Court is the collection of the tax imposed and demanded. So no attempt at collection could have been made during the operation of the stay order. Whether it is collected or not interest will accrue because of the statutory provision. So when the collection of tax alone is stayed, it does not mean that the provision in the Section is abrogated or even suspended during the period of the operation of stay. I am therefore unable to accept the contention raised by counsel that interest is not payable during the period when the stay orders of the High Court were in operation. I may add that the writ application O.P. 2265 of 1962 was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable. Along with that, the stay petitions were also dismissed. 5. I dismiss this petition but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.