The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synthite Industrial Chemicals Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]ramachandran nair, j.1. the only question raised is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the respondents were entitled to seek for set off of credit available in the previous year's assessment completed under section 115jaa against assessed tax for the purpose of determination of interest liability under section 234b and section 234c of the i.t. act. in fact, in the course of completion of assessment, the assessing officer allowed set off and worked the interest under sections 234b and c on the net deficiency. however, the commissioner in exercise of suo motu revisional power under section 263 cancelled the assessment against the assessees filed appeals before the tribunal. we notice that subsequent to the order issued by the tribunal, there has been a decision of the delhi high court in cit v. jindal exports ltd. : (2009) 314 i.t.r. 137 (del.), followed by the madras high court reported in cit v. chemplast sanmar ltd. : (2009) 314 i.t.r. 231, which are rendered based on later amendment introduced to section 234b by finance act 2006 with effect from 1.4.2007. it is seen that corresponding amendment is made to section 234a also, so that credit available can be set off against liability to pay tax under section 140a along with return. even though amended provision which authorises set off of credit available under section 115jaa is not retrospective, the delhi high court has held that the provision is only clarificatory in nature. standing counsel contended that the provision introduced is substantive and is expressly made prospective. however, we are unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that such an interpretation will cause heavy hardship to the parties because if credit is available for adjusting against tax liability, we see no reason why it should not be permitted to be set off against tax liability before determination of liability for interest due under sections 234b and c. there is also no express bar against assessees reckoning the credit available under section 115jaa while making payment of advance tax. we therefore find no ground to deviate from the view of the delhi and madras high courts in the decisions above referred. consequently taking the view that the amended provision is clarificatory in nature, we dismiss the two appeals filed by the department.