What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter back for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to examine whether the licence fee was an accrued or contingent liability, considering its previous decision and any appeal filed by the revenue.

The assessee claimed licence fee payable to railways for land use as an accrued liability. The Tribunal had previously held such a fee as an accrued liability for an earlier assessment year. However, in the present case, the Tribunal failed to address this aspect.

What were the issues?

Whether the licence fee payable to the railways for the use of land is an accrued liability or a contingent liability, and whether the Tribunal was bound by its previous decision on this issue.

Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Taax | Delhi High Court 2008

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 11.12.2008

+ ITA 1349/08, ITA 1350/08, ITA 1351/08, ITA 1352/08, ITA 1353/08 & ITA 1354/08

J. P. GUPTA

… Appellant

- versus –

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr O. S. Bajpai with Mr Rajiv Saxena For the Respondent : Mr R. D. Jolly

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In these appeals the common order dated 22.07.208 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is in question. The issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the licence fee payable to the railways for use of land as a depot, could be regarded as an accrued liability or a contingent liability. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that before the Tribunal he had taken 2008:DHC:3302-DB

1995-1996, which had been decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25.11.2004, the said licence fee has been construed to be an accrued liability and, therefore, allowable as an expenditure in the year of accrual. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not returned any finding on this aspect of the matter.

Consequently, we feel that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matters to be remanded to the Tribunal for a consideration on this aspect of the matter. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee the matter stood concluded by virtue of the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1995-1996 and, therefore, there was no occasion for re-entering into the dispute of whether the licence fee payable was a contingent liability or an accrued liability. The learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee submits that the Tribunal ought to have followed its decision in respect of the assessment year 1995-1996 particularly when no appeal therefrom had been preferred by the revenue and the issue had become final.

Mr Jolly, who appears on behalf of the revenue, submits that he does not have any instructions whether any appeal has been preferred from the order of the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment 2008:DHC:3302-DB

the Tribunal for a consideration on this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal would examine as to whether the revenue had preferred any appeal therefrom or not and the effect thereof.

The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are remanded to the Tribunal for a consideration afresh as per the directions given above. The matters be placed before the Tribunal on 15.01.2009 for further directions. The appeals stand disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 11, 2008 SR

2008:DHC:3302-DB

JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAAX

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments