COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HARI STORE

JUDGEMENT

(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 of 1992 [CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanaraj (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 unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within the time allowed under the Sales-tax Act should not be disallowed by virtue of S. 43B of the IT Act, 1961.