C.I.T. vs. M/S. JAGAN NATH DIN DAYAL

ITR/38/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032453199526 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 1997 (224) ITR 677. Following this precedent, the High Court decided the issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The specific amount in dispute, Rs.3,40,973/-, was not to be added under Section 43B if the Central Sales-tax was paid by the prescribed due date. The operative direction is to answer the question of law in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR No. 38 of 1995) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (the revenue) against M/s Jagan Nath Din Dayal Fazilka (the assessee). The reference arises from an order dated 18.08.1992 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, in I.T.A. No.830/ASR/1987 concerning assessment year 1984-85. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs.3,40,973/- made under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is considering a question of law referred by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that if the payment of Central Sales-tax had been made before the due date prescribed under the enactment under which these were required to be made, then no addition u/s 43B of Rs.3,40,973/- was warranted? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's position, as implied by the Tribunal's finding, is that if the Central Sales-tax was paid by the due date, no addition under Section 43B was justified. Revenue's Contention: The revenue challenges the Tribunal's view, implying that the addition under Section 43B was warranted despite the payment being made by the due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.38 of 1995 Date of decision: 26.10.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax Jalandhar. ---Applicant Vs. M/s Jagan Nath Din Dayal Fazilka. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L. Sharda, Advocate for the revenue. -----

ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 18.08.1992 in I.T.A. No.830/ASR/1987 in respect of assessment year 1984-85:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that if the payment of Central Sales-tax had been made before the due date prescribed under the enactment under which these were required to be made, then no addition u/s 43B of Rs.3,40,973/- was warranted?” We find that the issue is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

1997 (224) ITR 677. Following the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →