Cit Vs. Ramawatar Rajkumar

Cit vs Ramawatar Rajkumar

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 02, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772531

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/772531
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Decided On: Aug 02, 2002
Case Number: D.B. IT Reference No. 12 of 1995 2 August 2002
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: J.K. Singhi and Anuroop Singhi, for the Revenue In the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. -

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate J.K. Singhi and Anuroop Singhi, <i>for the Revenue</i>

Respondent

Ramawatar Rajkumar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Sanghi Motors v. Union of India
Reported In: [2002]125TAXMAN41(Raj)

Excerpt

counsels: j.k. singhi and anuroop singhi, for the revenue in the rajasthan high court, jaipur bench y.r. meena & shashi kant sharma, jj. - orderon an application filed under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), the tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally justified in holding the sales-tax liability should not be disallowed under section 43b, even if it is paid after the accounting year of the assessee but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law ?' 2. the assessee is a registered firm. it had collected sales-tax but an amount of rs. 1,80,045 remained unpaid by the end of the accounting year. the income tax officer had disallowed the amount invoking the provisions of section 43b of the act. the commissioner (appeals) has also confirmed the view taken by the income tax officer. in the appeal filed before the tribunal, the tribunal has followed the decisions in the cases of escorts ltd. v. union of india (1991) 189 itr 81, sanghi motors v. union of india (1991) 187 itr 703 and allowed the claim of the assessee.3. none puts in appearance on behalf of the assessee.4. we have heard mr. j.k. singhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. mr. singhi fairly admitted that the issue involved in the instant reference has already been decided by their lordships of the apex court in allied motors (p) ltd. v. cit : [1997]224itr677(sc) wherein their lordships have taken the view that if the amount has not been paid by the end of the accounting year and paid within the period allowed by the statute, the deduction of that amount should not be allowed.5. in the question itself, the fact has been admitted that the amount in question has been paid within the time prescribed in the relevant act. when the aforesaid amount has been paid within the period allowed in the respective statute, that amount does not hit by the provisions of section 43b, and as such, no interference is called for in the present matter.6. in the result, we answer the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

On an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the sales-tax liability should not be disallowed under section 43B, even if it is paid after the accounting year of the assessee but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax Law ?'

2. The assessee is a registered firm. It had collected sales-tax but an amount of Rs. 1,80,045 remained unpaid by the end of the accounting year. The Income Tax Officer had disallowed the amount invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also confirmed the view taken by the Income Tax Officer. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has followed the decisions in the cases of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81, Sanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703 and allowed the claim of the assessee.

3. None puts in appearance on behalf of the assessee.

4. We have heard Mr. J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. Mr. Singhi fairly admitted that the issue involved in the instant reference has already been decided by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) wherein their Lordships have taken the view that if the amount has not been paid by the end of the accounting year and paid within the period allowed by the statute, the deduction of that amount should not be allowed.

5. In the question itself, the fact has been admitted that the amount in question has been paid within the time prescribed in the relevant Act. When the aforesaid amount has been paid within the period allowed in the respective statute, that amount does not hit by the provisions of section 43B, and as such, no interference is called for in the present matter.

6. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, that the Tribunal has not erred in allowing the deduction in the aforesaid case, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2002 Same Parties Cit vs Ramawatar Rajkumar Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation