The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S Roshan Lal Oil Mills (P) Limited, Bathinda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITC No.16 of 1999 Date of decision: 11.10.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala -----Petitioner Vs. M/s Roshan Lal Oil Mills (P) Limited, Bathinda ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the revenue.None for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1.This application has been filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) for directingIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar to referfollowing questions of law for opinion of this Court, arising out ofits order dated 30.4.1998 in ITA No.1306/Amritsar/91, for theassessment year 1985-86:- “i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was right in law in allowingdeduction of octroi which was not deposited duringthe previous year relevant to the assessment yearunder consideration? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was right in law in holdingthat depositing the amount in joint bank accounttantamounts to payment whereas it is in the form ofsecurity and not payment? 2. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of octroiduty paid to the Municipality which was deposited in a jointaccount. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction byholding that the amount deposited in joint account cannot be heldto have been paid as per Section 43B of the Act. On appeal, theCIT(A) held that since the amount had gone from the control of theassessee, the same amounted to payment. Observations in the saidorder are as under:- “In the present case, the matter has become moreclear since in view of the agreement dated25.3.1991 with the Municipal Committee theamount has been actually transferred to theMunicipal Committee by the Bank and receiptshave been issued to the appellant. I am inagreement with the view of the learned CIT(A)-2,Jalandhar that once the amount was deposited inthe Joint Bank account under the direction of theCourt, amount had finally gone out of the controlof the assessee. The appellant is, therefore,entitled to this deduction and the AO is directed toallow the same.” 4.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5.In view of the finding referred to above, there is noerror in the view taken by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. We, thus,do not find it necessary to give direction to the Tribunal forreferring the questions of law proposed on behalf of the revenue. 6.The application is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 11, 2010‘gs’ (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge