B.R.ARORA, J. - (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 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of learned CIT(A) and thereby holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable under S. 43B of the IT Act, if the same is paid within the prescribed time limit under the Sales-tax 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. 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 Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under : "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 year from 1984-85 to 1987-88." For the reasons given in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 (supra) the question referred is 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 unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable under S. 43B of the IT Act if the same is paid within the prescribed time limit under the Sales-tax Act.;