D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. R S E B(Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 138 / 2016Pr Commissioner Of I T Jaipur-Ii Jaipur ----Appellant Versus R S E B(Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. D. Mathur on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASOrder 25/03/2017 Issue is covered by the decision of this court in IncomeTax Appeal No. 278/2011 (Commissioner of Income Tax, V/sJaipur Vidyut Nigam Ltd.) decided on 6[th] January 2014 wherein ithas been held as under:- “We have considered the argumentsadvanced by the learned counsel for the revenueand have also gone through the impugned orders.In our view no substantial question of law arise outof the orders of the ITAT as it is an admitted factthat the entire amount was deposited by therespondent-assessee at least on or before the duedate of filing of the returns under Section 139 ofthe I.T. Act and being a concurrent finding of factby the respective authorities and in the light of thejudgments rendered by this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.177/2011) so also Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.189/2011), of even datewherein it has been held that if the amount hasbeen deposited on or before the due date of filingthe return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then theamount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B ofthe I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.In fact in the above matters one of the party issame as in the present appeals, therefore, theissue is no more res-integra in the light ofjudgments of this Court referred to supra and, inour view, no substantial question of law arises outof the impugned orders of the ITAT, which mayrequire attention of this Court.” In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI)ACTING C.J. Gourav/154