Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur v. M/S Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd., Ist Floor C-Block,Vitta Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Pan-Aaccr9522R

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.74/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd., Ist Floor C-Block,Vitta Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Pan- ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr.K.D. Mathur for Mr.R.B. Mathur For Respondent : Mr.P.K. Kasliwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARIJudgment 21/03/2017 1.Heard. 2.For the reasons mentioned in Application No.5056/2017seeking early hearing, the same is allowed. 3.In view of the nature of controversy, the matter is being taken up today for hearing and final disposal itself. 4.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24/09/2015, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the income tax appeal filed by theassessee against the order dated 08/10/2013 passed by theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), upholding theassessment-order dated 04/01/2013 passed by the assessingauthority. 5.The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal in briefare that the assessee Corporation is a Rajasthan StateGovernment undertaking incorporated on 24/02/2005 to canalizethe sale of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) and Beer and toregulate the liquor distribution in the State of Rajasthan. The caseof the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny assessmentu/S.143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 6.After issuing notice to it u/Ss.142(1) & 143(2), theassessing officer assessed the income of the assessee for theassessment year 2010-11 in the status of the companyu/S.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, to be Rs.26,10,31,330/- apartfrom levying tax and charged interest u/Ss.234A, 234B and234C of the Act and penalty proceedings u/S.271(1)(c) underthe said Act were separately issued, vide order dated04/01/2013. 7.The assessee challenged the order dated 04/01/2013passed by the assessing authority by way of filing income taxappeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), whichafter hearing upheld the order dated 04/01/2013 vide orderdated 08/10/2013. 8.The assessee further challenged the order dated08/10/2013 passed by the appellate authority before the IncomeTax Appellate Authority and the Tribunal vide impugned-orderdated 24/09/2015 also upheld the order dated 08/10/2013passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9.Hence, this appeal. 10.This Court while admitting the appeal on 21/04/2016, framed the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additionsmade by the Assessing Authority by way of disallowingPrivilege Fee paid by the assessee to ExciseCommissioner, Government of Rajasthan despite thefact that it was application of income? 2. Whether in case of delay in depositing ofemployees’ contribution towards PF and ESI, the caseshould be governed by Section 43B of the Income TaxAct, 1961 or it should be by Section 36(1)(va) read withSection 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961?” 11.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon division bench judgment rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Rajasthan StateGanganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. dated 26/05/2016 passed in DBIncome Tax Appeal No.99/2009 and argued that the controversyinvolved in the present matter is squarely covered by the saidjudgment. 12.After perusal of the cited judgment, we find that thelaw enunciated in the M/s.Rajasthan State Ganganagar SugarMills Ltd. (supra) is mutatis mutandis applied to the facts of thepresent case. 2. Whether in case of delay in depositing ofemployees’ contribution towards PF and ESI, the caseshould be governed by Section 43B of the Income TaxAct, 1961 or it should be by Section 36(1)(va) read withSection 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961?” 11.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon division bench judgment rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Rajasthan StateGanganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. dated 26/05/2016 passed in DBIncome Tax Appeal No.99/2009 and argued that the controversyinvolved in the present matter is squarely covered by the saidjudgment. 12.After perusal of the cited judgment, we find that thelaw enunciated in the M/s.Rajasthan State Ganganagar SugarMills Ltd. (supra) is mutatis mutandis applied to the facts of thepresent case. 13.Hence, in view of the decision of this Court dated26/05/2016 passed in DB Income Tax Appeal No.99/2009 :Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Rajasthan StateGanganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., the present appeal also standsdismissed. (MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),ACTING CJ.