Itta/41/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I v. M/S Andhra Bank

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAndTHE HON’BLE SRIJUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY I.T.T.A.No.41 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short“the Act”), is preferred against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal in I.T.A.No.1491 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 for the assessment year2009-10. The respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Tribunalagainst the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabaddated 26.06.2014 confirming levy of interest of Rs.65,54,448/- charged by theassessing officer under Section 234C of the Act. The respondent herein, a public sector undertaking bank, wasassessed to tax under Section 143(3) of the Act by proceedings dated28.12.2011, and the interest payable by them was calculated by theassessing officer taking into account the advance tax of Rs.49 crores andRs.200 crores paid by the assessee on 16.06.2008 and 16.03.2009respectively. The assessee moved an application under Section 154 of theAct seeking rectification of the order of the assessing officer on the groundthat both 15.06.2008 and 15.03.2009 were Sundays and bank holidays, andthe payment was made on the next working day. They placed reliance onCBDT Circular No.676 dated 14.01.1994 as well as Section 10 of theGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 in this regard. With regards payment of Rs.49crores on 16.06.2008, the assessing officer rectified the assessment orderholding that the said payment was made by physical means. However, withregards payment of Rs.200 crores on 16.03.2009, the assessing officer notedthat the said payment was made through Internet Banking which operated‘24X7 round the year’, and 15.03.2009 was not a holiday for SBH InternetBanking. The Assessing authority held that payment of Rs.200 crores by theassessee towards advance tax on 16.03.2009 was after 15.03.2009, andtherefore interest was liable to be charged for belated payment. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No.676dated 14.01.1994 to hold that advance tax was paid by the assessee with theSBH and, since the said Bank was closed on 15.03.2009, payment wasmade on the next day; there was nothing in CBDT Circular No.676 to even indicate that the benefit thereunder depended on the mode of payment; whileit was no doubt true that the said Circular was issued in January 2009, whenthe facility of making payment of tax through Internet Banking was notavailable, it was also clear that the said Circular had not been modified bythe CBDT later restricting the benefit to cases other than payment of taxthrough Internet Banking; in the absence of any modification or clarificationthe benefit of Circular No.676 dated 14.01.1994, read with the provisions ofthe General Clauses Act, would be applicable even in cases where paymentof advance tax was made through Internet Banking; and, therefore, paymentof advance tax on 16.03.2009 should be considered as payment made on15.03.2009, Sunday being a holiday. Sri J.V. Prasad, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax,would reiterate before us the very same submissions urged by the revenuebefore the Tribunal. The respondent-assessee is a public sector undertaking bank and isclosed on Sundays. The respondent-assessee paid advance tax with theState Bank of Hyderabad which is also closed on Sunday. While an InternetBanking facility may be available round the clock, the said facility can only beoperated by the Bank through its officers. As Sunday, is a holiday, on whichdate both the respondent-assessee bank and State Bank of Hyderabad areclosed, none of the officers and staff of either of these banks would berequired to work on that day. Payment of advance tax on the very next daycannot, therefore, be said to be payment made beyond the time limit specifiedunder the Act. The respondent-assessee is a public sector undertaking bank and isclosed on Sundays. The respondent-assessee paid advance tax with theState Bank of Hyderabad which is also closed on Sunday. While an InternetBanking facility may be available round the clock, the said facility can only beoperated by the Bank through its officers. As Sunday, is a holiday, on whichdate both the respondent-assessee bank and State Bank of Hyderabad areclosed, none of the officers and staff of either of these banks would berequired to work on that day. Payment of advance tax on the very next daycannot, therefore, be said to be payment made beyond the time limit specifiedunder the Act. As has been rightly observed by the Tribunal in the order under appeal,CBDT Circular No.676 dated 14.01.1994 makes no distinction betweenpayment made by physical means and payment made through InternetBanking, and the said Circular has not been modified subsequent to its beingissued in January, 2009. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact and, save asubstantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal filedthereagainst, the impugned order would not necessitate interference. Noquestion of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises forconsideration in this appeal necessitating interference under Section 260-Aof the Act. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. MiscellaneousPetitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as tocosts. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 08[th] June, 2016.JSU __________________________________M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAnd THE HON’BLE SRIJUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ITTA.No.41 of 2016 JSU Date: 08.06.2016