JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law arising out of the order dated April 26, 1993, passed by it in Income-tax Application No. 1069/Ind. of 1988, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), for our consideration and opinion. " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction in respect of the sales tax and entry tax actually paid by the assessee before filing the return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 ? " 2. Although the Department proposed the undernoted two questions before the Tribunal, the Tribunal elected to refer only one question as noted above concerning applicability of Section 43B of the Act : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provisions of Section 43B were applicable to the assessment year 1984-85 when the said amendment was effective from April 1, 1988 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 can be charged or enhanced in the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 ?" 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowances of Rs. 1,49,389 by invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. This amount had represented the unpaid sales tax and entry tax. When the matter came up in appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal placing reliance on its order dated May 8, 1991, in the case of Mantri Brothers v. ITO, directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether any payment out of the said amount was made before the due date prescribed for filing the return and in case the amount was so paid, then the same was fit to be allowed as deduction. The Tribunal held as under : " So far as the disallowance of Rs. 1,49,389 under Section 43B regarding unpaid sales tax and entry tax is concerned, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify. The Tribunal held as under : " So far as the disallowance of Rs. 1,49,389 under Section 43B regarding unpaid sales tax and entry tax is concerned, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify. In case payment of the said amount or any part thereof has been made by the assessee before the due date prescribed for filing the return of income for the assessment year 1984-85, the amount actually paid shall be allowed as a deduction and in case any part of it has already been allowed as a deduction in the succeeding assessment year 1985-86 on the basis of actual payment, the same shall be withdrawn. In this connection, reference may be made to our order dated May 8, 1991, in ITA No. 1151/Ind. of 1988 in the case of Mantri Bros v. ITO." 4. The Tribunal, therefore, stated the case and referred the aforesaid question concerning Section 43B of the Act and declined to refer question No. 2 on the ground that the point had stood concluded by the decision CIT v. Mamta Tiwari [1988] 171 ITR 59 (MP). 5. We have heard Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri B. K. Joshi for the non-applicant. 6. Counsel for the applicant very frankly stated that the order passed by this court on January 24, 1996 in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 458 of 1992 (CIT v. Uttamchand Sahijram [1996] 220 ITR 517) and other miscellaneous civil cases and the common order passed by this court on February 7, 1996, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 432 of 1992 (CIT v. Satyal Vijay Kumar [1997] 226 ITR 449) and the connected cases and order dated February 8, 1996 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 418 of 1992 (CIT v. Mehta Shantilal) and the connected miscellaneous civil cases govern the fate of the present miscellaneous civil case also. 7. This court in the aforesaid cases has held that the amended provisions of Section 43B of the Act are retrospective in operation from the date when Section 43B was introduced, i.e., from April 1, 1984. The point projected in the miscellaneous civil case, thus, stands concluded by the decision rendered by this court in the aforesaid cases. 8. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. 9. In Parashuram Pottery Works Co. The point projected in the miscellaneous civil case, thus, stands concluded by the decision rendered by this court in the aforesaid cases. 8. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. 9. In Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 1TR 1 ; AIR 1977 SC 429 , pertaining to the Income-tax Act, it is held that (headnote of AIR 1977 SC) : " At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. " 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 11. This miscellaneous civil case is thus, disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 12. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal.