Subba Rao & Co v. Union Of India[[1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR REFERRED CASE NO.9 OF 1996 DATED:20.1.2012 Between:The Commissioner of Income TaxVisakhapatnam … Petitioner AndM/s. Sri Gopal Auto ServiceKakinada … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURAND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR REFERRED CASE NO.9 OF 1996 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The following substantial questions of law have been referred for consideration of this Court. 1.“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in law in holding that such sales-tax as havebeen collected during the year and are payable, as per therelevant statute, after the end of the year could not be disallowedunder the provisions of Sec. 43B of the Income Tax Act ?Tribunal was right in law in holding that such sales-tax as havebeen collected during the year and are payable, as per therelevant statute, after the end of the year could not be disallowedunder the provisions of Sec. 43B of the Income Tax Act ? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in allowing sales tax of Rs.10,711/- paid on26.10.84 notwithstanding that the payment as above has beenmade beyond the due date under the relevant statute ?”Tribunal was justified in allowing sales tax of Rs.10,711/- paid on26.10.84 notwithstanding that the payment as above has beenmade beyond the due date under the relevant statute ?” 2. Learned counsel for the Revenue frankly states that both thequestions have to be answered in the affirmative, against the Revenueand in favour of the assessee in view of decision of this Court in S. Subba Rao & Co. v. Union of India[[1]]. 3. We do so accordingly. 4. Reference is answered accordingly. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ 20-1-2012 _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J bnr [1][1988] 173 ITR 708