PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I T JAIPUR-2 vs. M/S RAJ STATE BEVERAGES CORP LTD

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.74/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd., Ist Floor C-Block, Vitta Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Pan-AACCR9522R ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr.K.D. Mathur for Mr.R.B. Mathur For Respondent : Mr.P.K. Kasliwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI Judgment 21/03/2017 1. Heard. 2. For the reasons mentioned in Application No.5056/2017 seeking early hearing, the same is allowed. 3. In view of the nature of controversy, the matter is being taken up today for hearing and final disposal itself. 4. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24/09/2015, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the income tax appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), upholding the assessment-order dated 04/01/2013 passed by the assessing authority.

(2 of 3) [ITA-74/2016] 5. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal in brief are that the assessee Corporation is a Rajasthan State Government undertaking incorporated on 24/02/2005 to canalize the sale of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and Beer and to regulate the liquor distribution in the State of Rajasthan. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny assessment u/S.143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 6. After issuing notice to it u/Ss.142(1) & 143(2), the assessing officer assessed the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 in the status of the company u/S.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, to be Rs.26,10,31,330/- apart from levying tax and charged interest u/Ss.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and penalty proceedings u/S.271(1)(c) under the said Act were separately issued, vide order dated 04/01/2013. 7. The assessee challenged the order dated 04/01/2013 passed by the assessing authority by way of filing income tax appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which after hearing upheld the order dated 04/01/2013 vide order dated 08/10/2013. 8. The assessee further challenged the order dated 08/10/2013 passed by the appellate authority before the Income Tax Appellate Authority and the Tribunal vide impugned-order dated 24/09/2015 also upheld the order dated 08/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. Hence, this appeal. 10. This Court while admitting the appeal on 21/04/2016,

(3 of 3) [ITA-74/2016] framed the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Authority by way of disallowing Privilege Fee paid by the assessee to Excise Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan despite the fact that it was application of income? 2. Whether in case of delay in depositing of employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI, the case should be governed by Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or it should be by Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961?” 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon division bench judgment rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. dated 26/05/2016 passed in DB Income Tax Appeal No.99/2009 and argued that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the said judgment. 12. After perusal of the cited judgment, we find that the law enunciated in the M/s.Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) is mutatis mutandis applied to the facts of the present case. 13. Hence, in view of the decision of this Court dated 26/05/2016 passed in DB Income Tax Appeal No.99/2009 : Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., the present appeal also stands dismissed. (MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),ACTING CJ. Anil Goyal-PS/123