ITR No.49 of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITR No.49 of 1996 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar -----Petitioner Vs. M/s Kasinka Tradings, Jalandhar City ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. At the instance of revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar has referred following question of law for opinion of this Court, arising out of its order dated 23.2.1994 in ITA No.923(ASR) 1989, for assessment year 1984-85:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,53,600/- when the similar addition made in the assessment year 1981-82 has since been annulled in appeal by the CIT(A) and the assessee had himself surrendered it in its return of income for the assessment year 1984-85?” 1 ITR No.49 of 1996 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase of hand tools and export thereof. In its return, the assessee declared loss on the ground that in the year 1981-82, amount received for payment of customs duty was wrongly shown as income. This plea was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) but the Tribunal upheld the same view. It was held that if the matter about leviablity of customs duty was finally decided in favour of the assessee, the amount will be taxable and not otherwise. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue points out that by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasinka Trading and another v. Union of India and another, AIR 1995 SC 874, the leviability has been upheld. The leviability of customs duty having been upheld, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the amount, as unpaid customs duty could not be treated as income of the assessee. 5. In view of above, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 2, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2