COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs BHARAT BAMBOO and TIMBER SUPPLIERS.

The following question has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Expln. 2 to s. 43B as inserted by the Finance Act, 1989, giving retrospective effect from 1st April, 1984, the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the extent of the sales tax amount paid even after the close of the accounting period but before the due date of filing the return of income under s. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?"

We have heard Mr. G. K. Joshi, senior standing counsel for the IT. Department, and Dr. A. K. Saraf, counsel for the assessee. Dr. A. K. Saraf submits that the question has been answered by different High Courts, namely, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikakollu Subba Rao and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, the Patna High Court, in Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Janardhanan Pillai, the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pyarilal Kasam Manji and Co., the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation, the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandulal Venichand, the Karnataka High Court in Chief Commissioner (Administration) Vs. Sanjay Sales Syndicate, and the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Govindaraja Reddiar, All these High Courts answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. However, the Delhi High Court answered the question against the assessee in Sanghi Motors vs. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703 and in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81

Following the majority decisions of the High Courts stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.