Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 88/2003. M/s. Shree Vishan Printers Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Jaipur Date of order : 07.09.2016 HON'BLE MR.K.S. JHAVERI,J. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Siddharth Ranka, for the appellant. Mr. R.B. Mathur, for respondent. BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Jhaveri,J.) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the Department and reversed the finding of the CIT (A). 2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that question of law which has been framed by this Court by its order dated 29.5.2003 reads as under: “Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,17,000/- on account of interest on the doubtful debt in the name of 21st Century Finance (P) Limited when on same set of facts and identical circumstances all along such addition was deleted in past years and attained finality?” 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that for the assessment year 1988-89, the same was added and CIT (A) has deleted, no appeal was preferred by the Revenue. Similarly, for 1989-90, it was deleted by CIT (A) then no appeal was preferred. Identically, for the assessment year 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Tribunal added and CIT deleted and appeal was also dismissed. For the first time for assessement year 1992-93, which is relevant, this
2 appeal is preferred by the assessee. 4. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon paragraph 9.2 of the practice established by the Charted Accountant: “9.2 Where the ability to assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim e.g., for escalation of price, export incentives, interest etc., revenue recognition is postponed to the extent of uncertainty involved. In such cases, it may be appropriate to recognise revenue only when it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection will be made. Where there is no uncertainty as to ultimate collection, revenue is recognised at the time of sale or rendering of service even though payments are made by instalments.”
and following decisions:- (i) Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 84 (SC) (ii) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parshwanath Housing Financing Corpn. Ltd., (2015) 57 Taxman..com 365 (Gujarat) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B.-III, Calcutta Vs. United BanK of India, (2015) 229 Taxman 442 (Calcutta) (iv) ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 120 Taxman 245 (Calcutta) 5. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Mathur while supporting the order of the Tribunal has contended that the discretion which is exercised by the Tribunal is required to be upheld inasmuch as while considering the view and earlier orders, cogent reasons have been given by the Tribunal why they are not following the earlier practice. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 6.1. Taking into consideration that for the earlier years namely; 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the CIT (A) has consistently held in favour of assessee which was upheld by the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be changed unless it is reversed or set aside by High Court or the Supreme Court, in that view of the
3 matter, the question referred to this Court is required to be answered in favour of assessee and against the Department. Ordered accordingly. (Banwari Lal Sharma),J. (K.S. Jhaveri),J. Bm gandhi/ 94 Bm gandhi/ 94