LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-155

J P GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On December 11, 2008
J P GUPTA Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals the common order dated 22.07.208 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is in question. The issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the licence fee payable to the railways for use of land as a depot, could be regarded as an accrued liability or a contingent liability. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee that before the Tribunal he had taken a specific plea that in the assessee''s own case for the assessment year 1995-1996, which had been decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25.11.2004, the said licence fee has been construed to be an accrued liability and, therefore, allowable as an expenditure in the year of accrual. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not returned any finding on this aspect of the matter.

(2.) Consequently, we feel that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matters to be remanded to the Tribunal for a consideration on this aspect of the matter. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee the matter stood concluded by virtue of the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1995-1996 and, therefore, there was no occasion for re-entering into the dispute of whether the licence fee payable was a contingent liability or an accrued liability. The learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee submits that the Tribunal ought to have followed its decision in respect of the assessment year 1995-1996 particularly when no appeal therefrom had been preferred by the revenue and the issue had become final.

(3.) Mr Jolly, who appears on behalf of the revenue, submits that he does not have any instructions whether any appeal has been preferred from the order of the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 1995-1996. In any event, since we are remanding the matters to the Tribunal for a consideration on this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal would examine as to whether the revenue had preferred any appeal therefrom or not and the effect there of.