HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 162 / 2010 C I T Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Sethi Construction Co Ltd ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 26/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of Department. 2. While admitting appeal, this Court on 16 th May, 2013,has framed following substantial questions of law: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in holding that out of total payment made, of Rs. 66,11,035/- was for cost of material hence provisions of Section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, were not applicable, despite fact that entire payment of Rs. 76,50,000/- was made towards sub contract as per agreement. division of payment as towards cost of material and hire charges is not as per agreement of sub contract. 3. Heard learned counsel for parties. 4. Following decision in decision of this Court in CIT Vs. (2 of 2) [ ITA-162/2010] Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj.), wherein it has been held as under: 6. We have considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for Revenue and have also gone through impugned orders. In our view no substantial question of law arises out of orders of Tribunal as it is admitted fact that entire amount was deposited by respondent-assessee at least on or before due date of filing of returns under s. 139 of IT Act and being concurrent finding of fact by respective authorities and in light of judgments rendered by this Court in case of CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (IT Appeal No. 177 of 2011) so also CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 189 of 2011), of even date wherein it has been held that if amount has been deposited on or before due date of filing return under s. 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before due date then amount cannot be disallowed under s. 43B of IT Act or under s. 36(1)(va) of Act. In fact In above matters one of parties is same as in present appeals, therefore, issue is no more res integra in light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question of law arises out of impugned orders of Tribunal, which may require attention of this Court. We find no merit in these appeals and same are hereby dismissed in limine. 4. We have decided today in D..B. Income Tax Appeal No. 579/2009, in favour of assessee. 5. In that view of matter issue is answered in favour of assessee and against department. 6. appeal stands dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B.M. Gandhi/68 CIT, Jaipur v. Sethi Construction Co. Ltd