Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Dimensional Plastiglass Industries (P) Ltd.

Cit vs Dimensional Plastiglass Industries (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 04, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772539

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case Number
D.B. IT Reference No. 60 of 1995 4 July 2002
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Counsels: J.K. 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, <i>for the Revenue</i>

Respondent

Dimensional Plastiglass Industries (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Sanghi Motors v. Union of India
Reported In
[2002]125TAXMAN46(Raj)

Excerpt

counsels: j.k. singhi, for the revenue in the rajasthan high court, jaipur bench y.r. meena & shashi kant sharma, jj. - orderon an application 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 and in law, the tribunal was justified in deleting addition made under section 43b notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not make the payment of outstanding liability of sales tax of rs. 97,498, esi rs. 640 and pf rs. 3,025 during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1984-85 ?'.2. the assessee is a private ltd. company which claimed liability of rs. 97,498 on account of sales tax, rs. 640 on account of employees state insurance and rs. 3,025 on account of employees provident fund. though the assessee contended before the commissioner (appeals), that the amount was paid after due date as required under section 43b of the act in appeal, before the commissioner (appeals), the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the claim. following the decision of the delhi high court in the case of sanghi motors v. union of india (1991) 187 itr 703, the view taken by the commissioner (appeals) has been confirmed by the tribunal.3. none appeared for the assessee. heard the learned counsel for the revenue.4. the learned counsel for the revenue has not pointed out the fact that the amount in question has not been paid within the period permissible in the provisions of the respective act. if the amount has not been paid in the financial year but before the last date provided in the provisions of their respective acts. in such cases deduction should be allowed. now the issue has been concluded by their lordships in allied motors (p) ltd. v. cit : [1997]224itr677(sc) wherein their lordships held that if the amount is paid after accounting year but before due date permissible under the provisions of the respective acts, it is deductible. in view of their lordships decision, we find no reason to interfere in the findings arrived at by the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

On an application 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 and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made under section 43B notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not make the payment of outstanding liability of sales tax of Rs. 97,498, ESI Rs. 640 and PF Rs. 3,025 during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1984-85 ?'.

2. The assessee is a Private Ltd. company which claimed liability of Rs. 97,498 on account of sales tax, Rs. 640 on account of Employees State Insurance and Rs. 3,025 on account of Employees Provident Fund. Though the assessee contended before the Commissioner (Appeals), that the amount was paid after due date as required under section 43B of the Act in appeal, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703, the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

3. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue.

4. The learned counsel for the revenue has not pointed out the fact that the amount in question has not been paid within the period permissible in the provisions of the respective Act. If the amount has not been paid in the financial year but before the last date provided in the provisions of their respective Acts. In such cases deduction should be allowed. Now the issue has been concluded by their Lordships in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) wherein their Lordships held that if the amount is paid after accounting year but before due date permissible under the provisions of the respective Acts, it is deductible. In view of their Lordships decision, we find no reason to interfere in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal.

5. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial