IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 590 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana-II, .....APPELLANT Versus M/s. Happy Forgings Ltd., Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The instant appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 08.08.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A” Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No.679/Chandi/2002 in case of the respondent for the Assessment Year 1998-99 by raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble ITAT was correct on holding that assessee's claim for the Excise Duty paid in advance, which has not actually become payable, is correct? As such findings given by the Hon'ble ITAT are perverse and it is a settled law that on perversity a question of law arises? In the present case the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to an amount of Rs.50,07,668/- which was paid as Excise Duty in advance while holding that when the said duty had not become payable, there was no justification to pay the same in advance. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 05.07.2002 I.T.A. No. 590 of 2007 -2- deleted the said addition. Being not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT, who vide order dated 08.08.2005 dismissed the same while taking into consideration its earlier decision dated 18.02.1993 on the similar issue passed in the case of Raj & Sen Deeps Ltd., Ludhiana vs. A.C.I.T., Ludhiana in ITA No.1853/Chandi/1992 for the Assessment Year 1989-90. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue very fairly conceded that against the decision in the case of Raj & Sen Deeps Ltd (supra), the department sought reference in ITR No.291 of 1995 by raising the following question of law for the opinion of this Court, which is similar to the one as raised in the instant appeal:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made u/s 43-B on account of advance excise duty paid which was neither debited to profit and loss account nor sales account or made part of the purchase price?” He further conceded that in the said reference, the afore-said question has been answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, in this appeal also, no substantial question of law is arising for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 11, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE