COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs BRIJLAL PAWAN KUMAR.

B. R. ARORA, J. :

The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1987-88, referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the High Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of learned CIT(A) and thereby holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable under s. 43B of the IT Act, if the same is paid within the prescribed time limit under the Sales-tax Act ?"

The material facts, on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided, is similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Achaldas Dhanraj and Sanklecha Brothers, . The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which was referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :

"The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid sales-tax liabilities to the last date of previous year could not be disallowed if it is found to have been paid subsequently within the time allowed under the relevant Sales-tax Act. The proviso to s. 43B for that purpose is to be interpreted as clarificatory and applicable to the assessment year from 1984-85 to 1987-88."

For the reasons given in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 (supra) the question referred is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable under s. 43B of the IT Act if the same is paid within the prescribed time limit under the Sales-tax Act.