IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE Nos 287 and 287-A of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus NIPPON ENGG. & MOULDING WORKS -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 287 of 1992 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 19/02/2004 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) In these references at the instance of the revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred for our opinion for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 :- "1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that unpaid sales tax could not be added u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the order of the CIT on the point of unpaid Sales Tax? 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law giving retrospective effect to be the proviso which is inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1988 ?" 2. We have heard Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee. 3. Our attention has been invited to the decision of the Apex Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 677 which has squarely concluded the controversy in favour of the assessee. 4. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, our answer to all the three questions is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The references accordingly stand disposed of. (M.S. Shah, J.) (M.C. Patel, J.) sundar/-