M/S. Shree Vishan Printers Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Jaipur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 88/2003. M/s. Shree Vishan Printers Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Jaipur Date of order : 07.09.2016 HON'BLE MR.K.S. JHAVERI,J.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Siddharth Ranka, for the appellant.Mr. R.B. Mathur, for respondent. BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Jhaveri,J.) 1.By way of this appeal, the assessee has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunalhas allowed the appeal preferred by the Department andreversed the finding of the CIT (A). 2.Counsel for the appellant has contended thatquestion of law which has been framed by this Court byits order dated 29.5.2003 reads as under: “Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,17,000/- onaccount of interest on the doubtful debt in thename of 21[st] Century Finance (P) Limited when onsame set of facts and identical circumstancesall along such addition was deleted in pastyears and attained finality?” 3.Counsel for the appellant has contended that for theassessment year 1988-89, the same was added and CIT (A)has deleted, no appeal was preferred by the Revenue.Similarly, for 1989-90, it was deleted by CIT (A) then noappeal was preferred. Identically, for the assessmentyear 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Tribunal added and CITdeleted and appeal was also dismissed. For the first timefor assessement year 1992-93, which is relevant, this appeal is preferred by the assessee. 4.Counsel for the appellant has relied upon paragraph9.2 of the practice established by the ChartedAccountant: “9.2 Where the ability to assess the ultimatecollection with reasonable certainty is lackingat the time of raising any claim e.g., forescalation of price, export incentives,interest etc., revenue recognition is postponedto the extent of uncertainty involved. In suchcases, it may be appropriate to recogniserevenue only when it is reasonably certain thatthe ultimate collection will be made. Wherethere is no uncertainty as to ultimatecollection, revenue is recognised at the timeof sale or rendering of service even thoughpayments are made by instalments.”and following decisions:- (i) Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 84 (SC)(ii) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Parshwanath Housing Financing Corpn. Ltd.,(2015) 57 Taxman..com 365 (Gujarat)(iii) Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B.-III,Calcutta Vs. United BanK of India, (2015) 229Taxman 442 (Calcutta) (iv) ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissionerof Income Tax, (2002) 120 Taxman 245 (Calcutta) 5.Counsel for the respondent Mr. Mathur whilesupporting the order of the Tribunal has contended thatthe discretion which is exercised by the Tribunal isrequired to be upheld inasmuch as while considering theview and earlier orders, cogent reasons have been givenby the Tribunal why they are not following the earlierpractice. 6.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellantand learned counsel for the respondent. 6.1. Taking into consideration that for the earlier yearsnamely; 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the CIT(A) has consistently held in favour of assessee which wasupheld by the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunalcannot be changed unless it is reversed or set aside byHigh Court or the Supreme Court, in that view of the matter, the question referred to this Court is requiredto be answered in favour of assessee and against theDepartment. Ordered accordingly. (Banwari Lal Sharma),J. (K.S. Jhaveri),J. Bm gandhi/ 94