ITR/135/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.135 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd/- ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus SHAH CHIMANLAL PREMCHAND - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MS MM BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 03/10/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ITR/135/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax: 1. “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer of Rs.47,073/- on account of unpaid sales tax applying section 43B ?” 2. “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting an amount of Rs.47,073/- being unpaid sales-tax liability disallowed u/s. 43B inspite of amendment made in the said section by Finance Act, 1989 ?” 2. The Assessment Year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is Samvant Year 2039. 3. Heard Ms.M.M.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant-revenue. Though served there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 4. Ms.M.M.Bhatt has fairly pointed out that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of the Apex Court in case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 224 ITR 677 (S.C.). ITR/135/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, it is held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the Income Tax Officer on account of unpaid sales tax applying Section 43B of the Act. The questions referred to this Court are answered in the affirmative i.e. against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- [ D.A. MEHTA, J ] Sd/- [ H.N. DEVANI, J ] *** Bhavesh*