SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this reference under S. 256(1) IT Act, 1961("the Act") for the asst. yr. 1984-85 the following questions of law have been referred to this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the first proviso to S. 43B introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 would be applicable to the asst. yr. 1984-85 also? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) and directing the AO to examine the question of payment of sales-tax and allow the same in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of ITO vs. K.S. Lokhandwala (1989) 31 ITD 305 of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench?" Shortly stated, the facts leading to this reference are that the assessment year involved in the case of the assessee, Indus Services Ltd., is 1984-85. The AO considered the following amounts under the provisions of the S. 43B of the Act, since the same remained unpaid at the close of the relevant accounting year: Accordingly, the above amounts were added back to the total income
(2.) ON appeal by the assessee, the CIT (A) confirmed the above addition made by the AO for violation of the provisions of S. 43B although the assessee contended that the impugned amounts represented sales-tax collected for the last quarter payable within 30 days from the end of the accounting period and that the amounts were duly paid in time. The CIT (A) decided the issue according to the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 44 : (1973) 87 ITR 542. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to examine the question of payment of sales-tax and allow the same in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of ITO vs. K.S. Lokhandwala (supra) of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that these questions are now concluded by the decision of the Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Jagannath Steel Corpn. (1991) 191 ITR 676. Following the said decision we answer the first question in the affirmative. So far as the second question is concerned, we answer by saying that the AO shall examine the question of payment of sales tax and allow the same in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision.;