2015 (7) TMI 618 - HC - Income Tax

Addition under Section 43B - Tribunal deleting the addition concluding that second proviso to Section 43B stands omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2004 - Held that - When similar view has already been taken by this Court on the identical question of law, then there is no reason to deviate with the findings and question of law answered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) and since no distinguishing facts have been brought on record, therefore, in our view, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act
2. Meaning of "due date" in the context of filing returns
3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues

Analysis:
1. The High Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act in the present case. The appellant-department challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which dismissed the appeal regarding the addition of a specific amount under Section 43B. The questions raised included whether the findings of the Tribunal were incorrect in deleting the addition and not properly appreciating the second proviso of Section 43B. The respondent's counsel argued that similar questions had been addressed in previous judgments, citing DB Income Tax Appeal No.177/2011, and contended that the appeal should be dismissed based on those precedents.

2. Another issue revolved around the meaning of "due date" in the context of filing returns. The appellant acknowledged the similarity between the current appeal and the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. However, the appellant highlighted that Special Leave Petitions had been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the judgment in the aforementioned case. The appellant requested that the present appeal be either kept pending or be governed by the judgment to be delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the pending Special Leave Petitions.

3. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, noted that a similar view had already been taken by the Court on the identical question of law in previous cases. The Court emphasized that since no distinguishing facts had been presented, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. However, considering the pending Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Court decided that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the related cases would also impact the present appellant. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal with no order as to costs, indicating that the fate of the appeal would be governed by the pending judgments before the Hon'ble Apex Court.