B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following question of law under S. 256(1) of the 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 cancelling the order of CIT passed under S. 263 and in holding that the unpaid Sales-tax liability, if paid within time allowed under the Sales-tax Act, should not be disallowed by virtue of S. 43B of the IT Act?"
(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. Achal Dass 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 were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 this Court held that : "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 years from 1984-85 to 1987-88." For the reasons given in D.B.I.T. Ref. No.9/92 CIT vs. M/s Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) decided on 27th March, 1995 the question referred is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
(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 cancelling the order of CIT passed under S. 263 and in holding that the unpaid Sales-tax liability, if paid within time allowed under the Sales-tax Act should not be disallowed by virtue of S. 43B of the IT Act, 1961.;