The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s Janki Oil Industries, Mehsana

ITSSA 618/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9261 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMADABAD. V/S . M/S. JANKI OIL INDUSTRIES VILLAGE-BUDASAN, CHHATRAL- KADI ROAD, KADI, DIST- MEHSANA-382715 PAN NO. A A B FJ2 2 45D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI Y. P. VERMA, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 14.05.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.06.2013 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WHIC H HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD, DATED 16.09. 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.11,40,063/- ON ACCOU NT OF QUALITY ALLOWANCE. 2) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.40,10,000/- MADE ON ACCOU NT OF DEFERRED GUJARAT SALES TAX. 3) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD AVAILED THE BENEFIT PROVIDED TO IT UNDER THE SALES TAX DEFE RMENT SCHEME OF GUJARAT GOVERNMENT AND HAD PAID THE AMOUNT COLLECTE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID SCHEME. IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 2 4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD.CIT(A) IN DOING SO ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT EVEN UNDER THE SCHEME T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE YEARLY INST ALMENT THAT WAS NOT PAID AND HENCE THE AMOUNT NOT SO PAID WAS INADM ISSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.43B OF THE I.T. ACT. 5) THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS IGNORING TH AT THE SAID DECISION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASES BEING FACTU ALLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN AS MUCH AS IN THE CASES RELIED UPON, THE ISSUE W AS ADMISSIBILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE COLLECTION OF S ALES TAX WAS MADE BUT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID AS THE ASSESSEE AVAILED THE BENEFIT OF SCHEME WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE WAS ALL OWABILITY WAS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE UNDER THE SCHEME BUT NOT PAID DURING THE YEAR. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN GINNING & COTTON CRUSHING BUS INESS. 3. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.11,40,063/- ON ACCOUNT OF QUALITY ALLOWANCE. THE A.O. OBSERVED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED QUALITY ALLOWANCE EXPENSES AT RS.19,70,979/ - AS AGAINST CLAIM IN A.Y. 2008-09 AT RS.13,33,938/-. THE EXPENSES HAD INCREA SED, THEREFORE, THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2010 WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THE COP Y OF DEBIT NOTES AND LEDGER COPY OF EXPENSES ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT CLA IMED THAT RS.7,98,962/- WAS THE CASH DISCOUNT AND RS.7,32,806/- QUALITY ALL OWANCE. THE LD. A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,39,211/ - FOR THE REASONS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF QUALITY/CASH DISCOUNT WHEREAS DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,00,852/- W AS DISALLOWED ON THE IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 3 BASIS OF INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES. THUS, TOTAL ADD ITION OF RS.11,40,063/- MADE BY THE A.O. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,40,063 WHICH COMPRISES OF ADDITION OF RS.4,39 ,211 ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SUBMISSION OF CERTAIN COPIES OF DEBI T NOTES AND ADDITION OF RS. 7,00,852 ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE EXPENSES CLAIM ED IN COMPARISON IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON CAREF UL CONSIDERATION OF DETAILS, I OBSERVE THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER , APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF QUALITY ALLOWANCE AS WELL A S CASH DISCOUNT CLAIMED IN CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR RS. 19,70,97 9 AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM IT HAS SUBMITTED DEBIT NOTES OF RS. 15 ,31,768. THE AO WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS IN SUCH DEBIT NOTES SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT NOR REJECTE D EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT FOR INCREASE IN SUCH EXPENDI TURE. THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 19.71 LACS CLAIMED BY THE APPELL ANT IS SUPPORTED BY DEBIT NOTES AND DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF RESPECTIVE DEBTORS' ACCOUNTS AND SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED BY AUDITOR. THE ACCOUNTS ARE PAID/SETTLED ON THE BALAN CE AMOUNT AFTER CREDIT OF SUCH DISCOUNT AND QUALITY ALLOWANCE. IT I S OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AO HAS ASKED APPELLANT TO SUB MIT REASONS FOR INCREASE IN QUALITY ALLOWANCE ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, APPELLANT ALO NG WITH ITS REASONS FOR INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE, HAS SUBMITTED VOUCHERS CONTAINING DEBIT NOTES RAISED BY THIRD PARTIES FOR RS. 15.31 LACS, WHICH IS ALMOST 78% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY APPELLANT. THE AO HAS NOT ASKED, APPELLANT TO SUBMIT ALL THE VOUCH ERS AND JUST ON THIS GROUND ADDITION OF RS. 4,39,211 IS NOT JUSTIFI ED, MORE PARTICULARLY, IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 4 WHEN NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY AO IN DEBI T NOTES SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,39,21 1 IS DELETED. 4.3 WITH REGARD TO BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 7,00,852 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY COMPARED EXPENDITURE OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH THAT OF PREVIOUS YEAR AND APPLIED RATIO O F EXPENDITURE TO TURNOVER OF EARLIER YEAR IN CURRENT YEAR FOR MAKING PRESENT ADDITION. THE SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT THAT DURING THE YEAR TH ERE WAS A STRIKE IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES WHICH RESULTED INTO DETERI ORATION OF FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED BY APPELLANT IS NOT CONTRAVENED BY A SSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT BEING IN BUSINESS OF COTTON GINNING AND COTTON SEED CRUSHING, QUALITY OF PRODUCTION DEPENDS ON RAW MATERIAL RECEIVED BY IT AND SAME IS NOT COMPARABLE ON YEAR T O YEAR BASIS. THE DETERIORATION OF FINISHED GOODS HAS LED TO QUAL ITY ALLOWANCE GIVEN BY APPELLANT TO ITS CUSTOMERS/DEBTORS AND SUC H EXPENDITURE IS SUPPORTED BY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCES, WHICH IS NOT DI SPUTED BY AO; HENCE ADDITION MADE BY AO PURELY ON COMPARISON OF R ATIO OF EXPENDITURE OF TWO YEARS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, EVEN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SA BUILDERS V/S CIT 288 IT R 1 HAS OBSERVED THAT REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO P UT IN THE ARMCHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN AND DECIDE WHAT IS REASONABLE EXPE NDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PRESENT CA SE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN QUALITY DISCOUNT TO MAINTAIN A GOOD RELATION WITH ITS CUSTOMERS AND EVEN ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19.71 LACS IS VER Y MEAGER IN COMPARISON WITH TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.42.17 CRORES A CHIEVED BY APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE SAME, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO PURELY ON ASSUMPTION IS DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND OF AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER O F CIT(A). AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A S EARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON 05.02.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SA LE DURING THE YEAR AT IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 5 RS.42.16 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DECLIN ED COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS. THE EXPENDITURE OF CA SH DISCOUNT OF RS.12,85,222/- WAS SIMILAR WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN EAR LIER YEAR, WHICH ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO REALIZE ITS DUES FROM THE DEBTORS C OMPANY. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT DEBTORS DECLINED F ROM RS.3.86 CRORE IN A.Y. 08-09 TO RS.2.43 CRORE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HERE WAS STRIKE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE FACTORY PREMISES FO R ALMOST TWO MONTHS AND QUALITY OF FINAL PRODUCTS HAD BEEN DETERIORATED QUI TE CONSIDERABLY. AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO INCUR HEAVY EXPENDITU RE IN THE NATURE OF QUALITY ALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN FORM OF DEBIT NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES, FOR WHICH ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCES AT PAGE NOS. 72 TO 135 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AT RS.7,00,852/- BY COMPARING THE PREVIOUS YEA RS EXPENDITURE WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH SALES MADE IN A PARTIC ULAR YEAR, BUT IT VARIES ON YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS DEPENDING OF QUALITY OF GOODS SU PPLIES BY APPELLANT FIRM WITH REFERENCE TO ORDER SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMER. THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PU RPOSES. HE FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE THE CIT(A), PARTICULARLY, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (B.) LTD., [2002] 254 ITR 377, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIF IABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM SALES OF THE BUSINES SMAN AND ASSUME THE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING RE GARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE AUTHORITY MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 6 THEIR OWN VIEW POINTS BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINES SMAN. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED DEBIT NOTES BEFORE ALL THE AUTHORITIES WITH JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPENDITURE. THERE WAS REASON TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE AS QUALITY OF PRODUCT GONE DOWN AND PROMPT PAYMENT FROM THE DEBTORS. THE APPELLANT ALLOWED THE CASH DISCOUNT ON SALE. THE A PPELLANTS DEBTORS HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DECLINED COMPARE TO PREVIOUS YEA R. THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE A.O. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROU ND IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE REVOLVING AROUND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED GUJARAT SALES TAX. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN DEFERRED GUJARAT SALES TAX OF RS.40,10,000/- IN BALANCE SHEET. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTE R DATED 23.12.2010, WHICH WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE A.O., BUT HE HELD THAT TOTAL SALES TAX WAS COLLECTED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.1,00,25,000/- AND AFTER SETTING OFF THE LIABILITY OF DEFERRED GUJARAT SALES TAX OF RS.60,15,000/- THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID REMAINING AMOUNT OF SALES TAX OF RS.40,10,000/-. F URTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.40,10,000/-. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 7 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND SUBMISSION FILED BY APPELLANT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF APPELLANT'S CASE IS THAT APPELLANT HAS AVAILED SALES TAX DEFERM ENT SCHEME OF GUJARAT GOVERNMENT WHEREBY IT HAS COLLECTED SALES T AX OF RS. 1,20,30,000 UPTO AY 2005-06 AND SAME AMOUNT WAS RE QUIRED TO BE PAID IN YEARLY INSTALLMENT OF RS. 20,05,000. I FURT HER OBSERVE THAT APPELLANT HAS PAID RS. 80,20,000 UPTO AY 2008-09 AN D TWO YEARLY INSTALLMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,10,000 (RS. 20,05, 000 EACH) WERE OUTSTANDING IN AY 2009-10 AND SAME HAS BEEN PAID B Y APPELLANT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS CO LLECTED SALES TAX BUT SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WH EREAS APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT SUCH SALES TAX WAS COLLEC TED UNDER THE SALES TAX DEFERMENT SCHEME OF GUJARAT GOVERNMENT FO R WHICH FORM NO. 57 WAS DULY OBTAINED BY IT AND SUCH OUTSTANDING AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF APPELLANT IN CURRENT ASSESS MENT YEAR. THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS SQUARELY SUPPORTED BY CIRCULAR NO. 496 DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 1987 AND CIRCULAR NO. 674 DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 1993 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVE D THAT UNDER DEFERRED PAYMENT SCHEME, PROVISION OF SECTION 43B W OULD NOT COME IN THE WAY AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF DEFERRED SALES TAX WILL NOT BE ADDED TO INCOME OF APPELLANT, I FURTHER OBSERVE THA T AS REQUIRED IN CIRCULAR NO. 496, SALES TAX LAW IS AMENDED IN GUIAR AT SALES TAX ACT IN WHICH SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 47(4) OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 TH MARCH, 1988 REFERRED SUPRA. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS AND AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION T O GUJARAT SALES TAX ACT, HON' GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF C IT V/S SHREE TALAL TALUKA SAHARAWI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LIMITED 12 5 TAXMAN 248, IN CIT V/S GOODLUCK SILICATE INDUSTRIES PVT. L TD, 134 TAXMAN 175 AND FURTHER HON' MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF CIT VS. K.N. OIL INDUSTRIES 226 ITR 547 HAS DELETED ADDITIO N MADE FOR SALES TAX DEFERMENT SCHEME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AFORES AID DECISIONS AS IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 8 WELL AS CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT AND AMENDMENT IN GU JARAT SALES TAX ACT, ADDITION MADE BY AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND T HEREFORE IT IS DELETED AND RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHEREAS LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK AND PARTICULARLY DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NOS. 71, 72 & 106 AND CLAIMED THAT MINIMUM SUPPORT PRICE OF COTTON HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED COMPARE TO PREVIOUS YEAR. THE COTTON EXPORT WAS HEAVILY GONE DOWN DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE COTTON GINNERS HAD THREATENED THE GOVERNMENT BY CALLING INDEFINITE STR IKE TO PROTEST AGAINST HIGH COTTON SUPPORT PRICE DURING F.Y. 2008-09. LD. COUN SEL FOR THE APPELLANT DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 674, DATED 29 .12.1993 ON DEFERRED SCHEME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS FOR SALES TAX COLLE CTED AND NOT PAID U/S.43B OF THE IT ACT. AS PER SECTION 47 OF GUJARA T SALES TAX ACT, 1969 THERE IS A PROVISION THAT SUCH DEFERMENT OF SALES TAX WAS TO BE TREATED TAX PAID IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON CIT VS. BHAGWATI AUTOCAST LTD. [2002] 124 TAXMAN 452 (GUJ.), WHEREIN SUCH DEFERMENT OF THE SALES TAX WAS CONVERTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT INTO A LOAN WAS T O BE REPAID IN INSTALMENT, SALES TAX DUES WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ACTUALLY PA ID FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING U/S.43B, CBDTS CIRCULAR NO. 496, DATED 25 .09.1987 CONSIDERED. CIT VS. SANDUR MANGANESE IRON ORES (P.) LTD. [2002 ] 124 TAXMAN 455 (KAR.) & CIT VS. GOODLUCK SILICATE INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD., [ 2004] 134 TAXMAN 715 (GUJ.), WHEREIN SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE SATISFI ES THE SAID SALES TAX DEFERMENT SCHEME AND THE SAME IS NOT CAUGHT BY CHIE F OF THE SECTION 43B. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IT(SS)A NO. 618/AHD/2011 A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 9 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE GU JARAT SALES TAX AS PER SALES TAX ACT AND INSTALMENT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE INSTALMENT. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSE L (SUPRA) AND LIABILITY AND SALES TAX GUJARAT SALES TAX SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SH EET AT RS. 40.10 LACS IS NOT COVERED U/S. 43B OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMI SSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28.06.2013 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (T.R. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;