Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Satya Narain - Court Judgment |
| Direct Taxation |
| Allahabad High Court |
| Dec-21-2004 |
| Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1990 |
| R.K. Agrawal and ;Prakash Krishna, JJ. |
| [2005]277ITR354(All) |
| Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 43B and 256(1) |
| Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Krishna Satya Narain |
| Shambhoo Chopra, Adv. |
| None |
- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....question of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', for opinion to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 43b were not applicable in respect of sales tax liability of rs. 10,272 ?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85. the accounting period of the respondent firm ended on diwali, 1983. in the last quarter of the accounting period the respondent had collected sales tax from the customers amounting to rs. 10,272 but the same had not been deposited in the treasury during the accounting period in question. however, it was paid in accordance with the provisions of the u. p. sales tax rules within the prescribed period in the next accounting year. the income-tax officer added the said sum of rs. 10,272 in terms of section 43b of the act. the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), however, allowed the claim which order has been upheld by the tribunal.3. we have heard sri shambhoo chopra; learned standing counsel for the revenue. nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.4. it is not in dispute.....
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this court :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 43B were not applicable in respect of sales tax liability of Rs. 10,272 ?'
2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The accounting period of the respondent firm ended on Diwali, 1983. In the last quarter of the accounting period the respondent had collected sales tax from the customers amounting to Rs. 10,272 but the same had not been deposited in the treasury during the accounting period in question. However, it was paid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules within the prescribed period in the next accounting year. The Income-tax Officer added the said sum of Rs. 10,272 in terms of Section 43B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, allowed the claim which order has been upheld by the Tribunal.
3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra; learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
4. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 10,272 which the respondent had collected towards sales tax in the last quarter of the accounting period had been paid over to the Sales Tax Department within the prescribed period in the next accounting year. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the amount has not been paid over to the Sales Tax Department and the provisions of Section 43B of the Act would not be attracted.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.