Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 26th March, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'Lucknow' in I.T.A. Nos. 420 & 421 (Alld) of 1994 relating to assessment year 1987-88.
The appeal has been admitted on the following three substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was, in law, justified in allowing assessee's claim for deduction on account of interest on excess levy price and upholding the order of the CIT(A) that it was an ascertained liability"?
ii) If the answer to the question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether such liability accrued during the years relevant to the years under consideration and was allowable as such?
iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was, in law, justified in allowing assessee's claim for deduction on account of liability towards the additional cane price to the tune of Rs.200979/- for A.Yr. 1987-88."
Learned counsel for the parties submits that questions no. 1 and 2 have already been answered in favour of the assessee in I.T.R. No. 40 of 1991, C.I.T. Vs. M/s L.H. Sugar Factories, Pilibhit i.e. with regard to the same assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86 by the judgment dated 17.1.2005. Both questions have already been considered in favour of the assessee.
With regard to the third question, which has been framed in the memo of appeal, the said question is covered by another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29th April, 2005 passed in I.T.R. No. 122 of 1995, CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., reported in (2006) 157 TAXMAN 443 (All). Question No. 3 has already been answered in favour of the assessee.
In view of the above, all three substantial questions are covered by Division Bench judgments of this Court as noted above.
Following the aforesaid decisions of Division Bench of this Court, the present appeal is dismissed and the above questions are decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
(Prakash Krishna,J) (Ashok Bhushan,J) Order Date :- 6.4.2012 MK/