Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ludhiana-Ii v. M/S. Happy Forgings Ltd., Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH I.T.A.No. 590 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana-II, Versus .....APPELLANT M/s. Happy Forgings Ltd., Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana ....RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'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 theorder 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 AssessmentYear 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 waspaid as Excise Duty in advance while holding that when the said duty hadnot become payable, there was no justification to pay the same in advance.Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner 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 theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred an appealbefore the ITAT, who vide order dated 08.08.2005 dismissed the samewhile taking into consideration its earlier decision dated 18.02.1993 onthe similar issue passed in the case of Raj & Sen Deeps Ltd., Ludhianavs. A.C.I.T., Ludhiana in ITA No.1853/Chandi/1992 for the AssessmentYear 1989-90. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue very fairlyconceded that against the decision in the case of Raj & Sen Deeps Ltd(supra), the department sought reference in ITR No.291 of 1995 by raisingthe following question of law for the opinion of this Court, which issimilar 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 theaddition made u/s 43-B on account of advance excise dutypaid which was neither debited to profit and loss account norsales account or made part of the purchase price?” He further conceded that in the said reference, the afore-saidquestion has been answered against the revenue and in favour of theassessee. 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, 2008vkg (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE