Panchanathan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/661160 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Mar-06-1973 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 1970 |
| Judge | K.S. Hegde,; P. Jaganmohan Reddy and; H.R. Khanna, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1976SC909a; [1975]99ITR579(SC); (1975)4SCC834 |
| Acts | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 66(7), 243 and 297(2) |
| Appellant | Panchanathan Chettiar |
| Respondent | Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras |
| Disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Excerpt:
.....assessment comes within section 297 (2) (i) of income-tax act, 1961 - new act does not provide for payment of interest - held, assessee not entitled to interest on arrears. - maximsfalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus:[s.b.sinha, dr.mukundakam sharma & r.m. lodha, jj] held, principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in india indian evidence act, 1872 section 3:[s.b.sinha, dr.mukundakam sharma & r.m.lodha,jj] eye witnesses held, principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in india. only because eye-witness deviated from her statement made in f.i.r. in respect of one accused, her evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. indian penal code, 1890 section 300: murder - accused assaulted deceased on his failure to pay debt and said to have..........of the income-tax act, 1961 and not under section 66(7) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. under the new act, there is no provision for payment of interest unless the same comes within the scope of section 243 of that act. it is not the case of the assessee that the facts of this case come within the scope of section 243.2. in the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. but in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Judgment:K.S. Hegde, J.
1. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to claim interest on the refund which became due to him on the strength of the decision of this Court. The assessment in this case was completed long before the Income-tax Act, 1961 came into force. Under these circumstances, this case clearly comes within the scope of Section 297(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and not under Section 66(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Under the new Act, there is no provision for payment of interest unless the same comes within the scope of Section 243 of that Act. It is not the case of the assessee that the facts of this case come within the scope of Section 243.
2. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, we make no Order as to costs.