(1.) 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 :
(2.) 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 (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. 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. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in directing to allow Rs. 2,84,329 out of total unpaid sales- tax liability of Rs. 4,82,220 as the same stands paid prior to the filing of the return of income, whereas such amended provisions of S. 43B are applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1988.