N.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals relate to the same assessee and involve a common question of law, and are, therefore, being decided by this common order. Appeal No. 49 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1993 -94, Appeal No. 30 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1994 -95, and Appeal No. 132 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1996 -97.
(2.) THE learned Income -tax Appellate Tribunal decided the appeals relating to the years 1993 -94 and 1994 -95 by a common order dated October 12, 2004, out of which two Appeals Nos. 49 and 30 arise, while appeal relating to the assessment year 1996 -97 was decided, vide order dated October 18, 2004, by simply following its earlier judgment dated October 12, 2004. The bereft of unnecessary details the facts are that during these relevant years, after assessment having been made under Section 143(1)(a), the cases were taken up for scrutiny, and after completing the requisite formalities revised assessment orders were passed. Since in the present matters the controversy relates only to the admissibility of deduction under Section 43B, we think it appropriate to confine on that aspect of the matter only.
(3.) IN the revised assessment order, the learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax during the relevant year, and did not deposit it in the State treasury, in view of the fact, that the assessee was issued eligibility certificate under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987, published in the Gazette on September 29,1987, which was framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7(2B) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954', according to which the assessee was not required to pay to the Government the sales tax collected by it for a period of 7 years, and was to pay thereafter in accordance with the Scheme, and during this interregnum period, the amount of sales tax collected was deemed to have been actually collected by the Government, and disbursed as loan to the present assessee. In this regard the assessee relied upon a notification dated March 27, 1995, issued by the State of Rajasthan, so also the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 674, read with the provisions of the said Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987. The learned Assessing Officer in all the years disallowed the deduction and made addition by holding that so far the assessment years 1993 -94 and 1994 -95 are concerned, the notification dated March 27, 1995, is not retrospective, and so far as the assessment year 1996 -97 is concerned, the conversion of the sales tax amount into loan has not taken place during the financial year concerned, and that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to establish that any entry has been passed in the Government account regarding conversion of sales tax collected as loan during the financial year concerned.;