COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SATPAL TRIBHOVANDAS

PDF · subscribers
ITR/273/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020349199413 April 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred to it was concluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Motors (P) Limited vs. C.I.T., which approved the High Court's own earlier view in C.I.T vs. Chandulal Venechand. In Chandulal Venechand's case, the High Court had interpreted the proviso to Section 43B to relate back to the section's commencement date (April 1, 1984). It was held that such a liability would be allowable as a deduction if the assessee proved actual payment before the due date for furnishing the return under Section 139(1) for the relevant previous year in which the liability was incurred. Therefore, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision. The ITAT had ruled on the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The specific issue involved whether unpaid sales tax liability pertaining to the last quarter of a financial year could be allowed as a deduction if paid within the time stipulated for filing the return under Section 139(1). The High Court was asked to determine if the ITAT's finding was correct in law and on facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if the unpaid sales tax liability pertaining to the last quarter is paid within the time stipulated for filing of return under section 139 (1), the provisions of section 43 B cannot be made applicable? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 43B and Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the outcome implies the assessee contended that payment of the sales tax liability before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) should render the deduction allowable under Section 43B, as per the proviso. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the reference of the question to the High Court suggests the Revenue disagreed with the ITAT's interpretation of Section 43B and its proviso.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256,Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 273 of 1994

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

---------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SATPAL TRIBHOVANDAS ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI with MR M R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 13/04/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT [Per : Abichandani, J.]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act.

"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if the unpaid sales tax laibility pertaining to the last quarter is paid within the time stipulated for filing of return under section 139 (1) the provisions of section 43 B cannot be made applicable ?" The question referred to this Court now stands concluded by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in approved by the Supreme Court. In Chandulal Venechand's case, this Court while construing the provisions of Section 43-B had taken a view that the proviso to Section 43-B of the Act related back to the date when Section 43-B came into operation i.e., April 1, 1984. It was held that such liability would therefore be allowable as a deduction provided the assessee established that it was discharged by actual payment before the date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under Section 139 (1) of the Act in respect of relevant previous year in which the liability had been incurred.

In view of this settled legal position, the question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

****

Prakash*

More judgments on Section 256

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →