1. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue u/s. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Explanation 2 to section 43 B as inserted by the Finance Act, 1989 giving retrospective effect from 1.4.1984, the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the extent of the Sales Tax amount paid even after the close of the accounting period but before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the IT. Act, 1961.”
2. We have heard Mr. G.K Joshi, Senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department and Dr. A.K Saraf, counsel for the assessee.
3. Dr. Saraf submits that the question has been answered by different High Courts, namely, Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Subba Rao v. Union of India, (1988) 173 ITR 708 A.P, Patna High-Court, in Jamshed Pur Motor Accessories v. Union of India, (1991) 189 ITR 71, Patna, Kerala High Court in CIT v. P. Janardhanan Pillai, (1991) 189 ITR 165, Orissa High Court in CIT v. Pyarilal Kasam Manjid Co., (1992) 198 ITR 110 Orissa, Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Jagannath Steel Corporation, (1991) 191 ITR 679, Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Chandulal Venichand, (1994) 209 ITR 7, Kerala High Court in Chief Commissioner (Admn) v. Sanjay Sater Syndicate, (1992) 197 ITR 255 and CIT v. Govindaraja Reddiar, (1991) 187 ITR 417. All these High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. However, the Delhi High Court answered the question against the assessee in Sanghi Motors v. Union of India, (1991) 187 ITR 703 Delhi, and in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India, (1991) 185 ITR 81 Delhi.
4. Following the majority decisions of High Courts stated above, we answer the question in affirmative, i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
5. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.