9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of CIT(A). Jodhpur, for assessment year 1989-90. 2. Gr. No. 1 and Gr. Nos. 2.1 and 2.3 are not pressed. The main ground of appeal is 2.4 which is now alive. In this ground the appellant agitated on the ground that the CIT(A) erred in not directing the reduction of amounts paid before due date for filing Return (31-11-1989) to the extent of Rs. 1,86,281 and brought-forward amount of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al liability of Rs. 7,82,513 during this year, and the balance amount of Rs. 4,72,182 remained unpaid and outstanding as on 31-3-1989. On appeal, the CIT(A) also sustained the addition on the ground that deduction for statutory liability by whatever name called is allowable only on actual payment basis. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) both had not appreciated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) has also to be allowed. The appellant had made the payment of Rs. 1,86,281 till 31-10-1989 which was the due date in the present case under section 139(1). 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was contended by him that if the opening balance of Rs. 1,25,060 is directed to be excluded from the income of this year, the direction may be issued for disallowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction for payment of Rs. 1,86,281 after verification of the evidence of such payment by the appellant by the due date. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
