C I T ALWAR vs. M/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/280/2005HC RajasthanRJHC02022664200530 June 2015Author: AJAY RASTOGI,JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that when similar views have already been taken by the Court on identical questions of law, there is no reason to deviate from the findings in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. Since no distinguishing facts were brought on record, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, considering that SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment in the cited case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Jaipur Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur shall also govern the fate of the present appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The specific findings on each issue by the ITAT are not detailed in this judgment, but the High Court's decision is based on its prior ruling in a similar case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Alwar (appellant-Revenue) filed an appeal against an order dated 22/03/2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The ITAT had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The assessment year involved is 1994-95. The dispute pertains to additions made under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 5,59,043. The High Court admitted the appeal on specific questions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal's findings are perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,59,043 made under Section 43B by concluding that the second proviso to Section 43B stands omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2004, specifically when the assessment year involved is 1994-95? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal's findings are perverse in interpreting that 'due date' means the due date of filing of return, whereas Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) provides that 'due date' means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the Tribunal's findings are perverse in deleting additions made under Section 43B by not properly appreciating the second proviso of Section 43B? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The respondent-assessee submitted that the questions of law have already been answered by this Court in DB Income Tax Appeal No.177/2011 (CIT Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) and other connected cases vide judgment dated 06/01/2014, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Revenue's Contention: The appellant-Revenue admitted that the questions of law are identical to the cited case but submitted that Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) have been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment dated 06/01/2014. Notices have been issued in the SLPs. Therefore, the Revenue requested that the appeal be kept pending or governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR DB Income Tax Appeal No.280/2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar Vs. M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. Date of Order :: 30/06/2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, counsel for the respondents

1.

Instant Income Tax Appeal is directed against the order dt.22/03/2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No.314/JP/1998 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-department has been dismissed.

2.

The instant appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dt.21/10/2005 on the following questions:- “(i)Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in deleting the addition of Rs.5,59,043/- made under Section 43B by concluding that second proviso to Section 43B stands omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2004 specifically when the assessment year involved in the matter is 1994-95 ? (ii)Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in interpreting that by due date it means the due date of filing of return whereas

2 as per explanation of Section 36(i) (va) provides that the due date means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order ? (iii)Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in deleting the additions made under Section 43B by not properly appreciating the second proviso of Section 43B ?”

3.

Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submitted that the above referred questions have been answered by this Court in DB Income Tax Appeal No.177/2011 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) and other connected cases vide judgment dt. 06/01/2014 and contended that since identical question and self same contrary has been answered by deciding the same in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed accordingly.

4.

Counsel for the appellant-Revenue, though admitted that the question of law in the instant appeal and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) are identical but Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16251 of 2014, CIT Jaipur Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Special Leave Petition No.16242

3 been filed by the department before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment dt.06/01/2014 passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) and according to her in the said SLPs, notices have been directed to be issued. Therefore, she contended that the instant appeal may be kept pending or in the alternative, the appeal may be directed to be governed by the judgment to be delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.16251 of 2014, CIT Jaipur Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Special case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) and since no distinguishing facts have been brought on record, therefore, in our view, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of 4 Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) , the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Jaipur Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) shall also govern the fate of the present appellant.

6.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.K. Ranka), J. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Raghu, Sr. PA.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →