Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C.I.T. v. Raghubir Saran - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 31 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 9303 (16 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 2

Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1998

M/s Shambhoo Saran Sanjeev Kumar, Farrukhabad


The Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this Court.

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,16,007/- should be made?"

The reference relates to the assessment year 1986-87.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference are as follows:

The assessee had realized a sum of Rs. 2,18,007/- on account of excise duty from the customers but did not deposit the same in the Government Treasury and challenged his liability to pay excise duty before this Court and got a stay till the disposal of the writ petition. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment did not allow deduction of the said excise duty under that section and added the same towards the income. In appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition relying on his own order in the case of this very assessee for an earlier year. The Department, being aggrieved came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department by stating that Section 43B of the Act introduced from 1st April, 1984 clearly provides that any duty realized, but not deposited in the Government Treasury during the year will not be allowed as deduction and this section was introduced only to meet the contingencies such as, this one, i.e. the duty realized and not paid to Government on the basis of stay order obtained from Court of law.

We have heard Sri A.P.Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount in question was realized by the applicant assessee in the year 1978 did not pertain the realization, if any, made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question and, therefore, when the amount was realized in the year 1978, the applicability of the provisions of Section 43B of the Act which was introduced from 1st April, 1984 was not in the Statute Book did not arise. The submission is wholly misconceived.

The applicant either before the Assessing Authority or first Appellate Authority or the Tribunal did not take this plea. On the other hand, the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order specifically stated that on examination of the account it was found that in the account of Bank Guarantee Khata the assessee has credited a sum of Rs. 2,16,007/- on account of excise duty realized by the assessee from the customers and a sum of Rs. 2,50,042.38 have been debited in this account which is on account of purchasing the fixed deposit receipts. It has further been stated therein that the account clearly shows that the assessee did not deposit the amount of excise duty, which he realized during the previous year but invested in purchase of fixed deposit receipts.

It is well settled that the amount of excise duty which has been realized by a person forms part of its trading receipt as held by the Apex Court in the cases of M/s Churinghee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) 87 ITR 542 and Sinclair Murray and Co. P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1994) 97 ITR 615. Thus the excise duty, which the applicant has realized during the previous year, forms part of the trading receipt. The Assessing Officer had checked the accounts book for the assessment year 1986-87 and directed that as amount of excise duty has not been paid over to the concerned Department, under Section 43B of the Act deduction was not admissible at all.

We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.