Case: Shew Kissen Bhattar Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta

The assessee is a trustee of a house property at Chandmari Road, Howrah. In respect of that house there was a title suit filed by one Durga Prasad Chamria against Smt. Anardeyi and others claiming title over that property and for other reliefs. A consent decree was passed in that suit on April 19, 1928. Under the terms of that decree the aforementioned house property was held to belong to Smt. Anardeyi Sethani but she was to make a payment of Rs. 8,61,000/- to the plaintiff therein. There was stipulation for the payment of compound interest on the unpaid amount @ 6 3/4 % with yearly rests. It was further provided therein that Rs. 4,25,000/- was to be paid on the execution of the terms of settlement and thereafter monthly instalments of Rs. 35,000/- for seventeen months and the balance in the 18th month. The terms of the compromise were not adhered to inasmuch as there were defaults in payment of interest. After making the payment on February 19, 1945, there still remained outstanding Rs. 2,70,536/. The interest on this amount @ 6 3/4 % for a year worked out to Rs. 18,000/-. The assessee, however, calculated the total interest payable at Rs. 38,221/- for the assessment year 1956-57, relying on the clause in the agreement providing for payment of compound interest. The Income-tax Officer gave a deduction of Rs. 18,000/only, on the basis of simple interest at the rate of 6 3/4 % per annum. The assessees appeal against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later on by the Tribunal. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee the following question of law was referred to the High Court, in respect of the assessment yearon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of the words interest payable on such capital in S. 9 (1) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the amount of interest allowable was Rs. 18,000/- or Rs.questions referred to for the remaining assessment years are more or less similar. The High Court answered those questions, as mentioned earlier, in favour of the Department.

Court's reasoning:
It must be borne in mind that what the law permits is the deduction of the amount of any interest on such mortgage or charge. The interest payable by the assessee on the capital charge was at the rate of 6 3/4 % per annum. But if he fails to pay that in accordance with the terms of the contract, he was liable to pay compound interest. In other words, if he fails to pay interest in accordance with the contract, he was liable to pay interest on interest. Or to put it differently, when the interest payable is not paid, the same became a part of the principal and thereafter, interest has to be paid not only on the original principal but also on that part of the interest which had become a part of the principal. It cannot be said that the interest which became a part of the principal can be considered as the capital charge. What the assessee is entitled to deduct is the interest payable by him on the capital charge and not the additional interest which because of his failure to pay the interest or the due a date had been considered as a part of the loan. In fact, the real capital charge is that which was originally due. The other portion is merely an interest on which the assessee has agreed to pay interest. Hence we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the interest paid on interest is an interest paid on the capitalto our minds, appears to be a fallacious argument. The compound interest is payable not on the capital charge but on that part of the interest on which he has agreed to pay interest. That is not the capital taken note of by S. 9 (1) (iv). If we accept Mr. Chaglas contention as correct, then the door will be open for evasion of tax. All that the debtor need do is not to pay interest regularly but utilize that amount for other purposes and make the Revenue pay compound interest payable by him and thus derive advantage out of his own omission. Such an interpretation is impermissible.6. We are clearly of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the High Court is the correct interpretation.