COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BUSINESS MACHINE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/86/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022411199503 February 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 Appellate Tribunal was correct in its decision. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. and its own prior decision in C.I.T. v. M/s. Chandulal Venichand & others, the Court affirmed that if the unpaid sales tax liability pertaining to the last quarter is paid within the time stipulated for filing the return under Section 139(1), the provisions of Section 43B cannot be made applicable. The principle is that payment within the extended due date for filing the return is considered timely for the purpose of Section 43B, allowing the deduction in the year the liability arose. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning the applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The specific issue pertained to unpaid sales tax liability for the last quarter of a financial year. The Tribunal held that if this liability was paid within the time stipulated for filing the return under Section 139(1), Section 43B would not apply. The High Court noted that this case had identical facts and involved the same legal point as another reference, Income-tax Reference No. 295/94, which was decided concurrently.

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 43B cannot be made applicable? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. However, the Tribunal's decision, which was upheld by the High Court, implies that payment of the sales tax liability within the extended period for filing the return under Section 139(1) satisfies the condition for deductibility under Section 43B. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments. However, the Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order suggests they contended that Section 43B should be applied, disallowing the deduction of the unpaid sales tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 86 of 1995

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 BUSINESS MACHINE PVT. LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH Date of decision: 03/02/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT Per: R.K. Abichandani, J.

1.

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, 1961. "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 43B cannot be made applicable ?"

2.

Identical question in similar factual background came up for consideration before us in Income-tax Reference No. 295/94 which is decided by us today. Since the facts are similar and point involved is identical, we do not reproduce the facts in this order from the record of this Reference. In answering the identical question in the said matter we have followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. reported in 224 ITR P. 677 and the decision of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. M/s. Chandulal Venichand & others, reported in 209 ITR P.

7.

For the reasons which are given by us in deciding the question involved in Income-tax Reference No. 295/94, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right 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 43B cannot be made applicable. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Reference stands disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.

[R.K. ABICHANDANI, J.]

[KUNDAN SINGH, J.] ***** Amp/-

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →