The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. M/S Kasinka Tradings, Jalandhar City

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITR No.49 of 1996 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar -----Petitioner Vs. M/s Kasinka Tradings, Jalandhar City ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.At the instance of revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar has referred followingquestion of law for opinion of this Court, arising out of its orderdated 23.2.1994 in ITA No.923(ASR) 1989, for assessment year1984-85:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the learned Tribunal is right in deleting theaddition of Rs.1,53,600/- when the similar additionmade in the assessment year 1981-82 has since beenannulled in appeal by the CIT(A) and the assesseehad himself surrendered it in its return of income forthe assessment year 1984-85?” 2.The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase ofhand tools and export thereof. In its return, the assessee declaredloss on the ground that in the year 1981-82, amount received forpayment of customs duty was wrongly shown as income. This pleawas not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) but theTribunal upheld the same view. It was held that if the matter aboutleviablity of customs duty was finally decided in favour of theassessee, the amount will be taxable and not otherwise. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue points out that byjudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasinka Trading andanother v. Union of India and another, AIR 1995 SC 874, theleviability has been upheld. The leviability of customs duty havingbeen upheld, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the amount,as unpaid customs duty could not be treated as income of theassessee. 5.In view of above, the question referred is answeredagainst the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6.The reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 2, 2010‘gs’ (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge