Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh v. M/S Tibetan Children Village Dal Lake, Dharamshala (H.p

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA OMP(M() No. 31 of 2017 Decided on: 05.11.2018 __________________________________________________________________ Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh …..Applicant/appellant Versus M/s Tibetan Children Village Dal Lake, Dharamshala (H.P. …..Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________________ For the applicant/appellant: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan and Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, Judge.(oral) OMP(M() No. 31 of 2017 Supplementary affidavit stands filed. A perusal thereof supports the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay of one year, three months and twenty one days in re-filing the appeal. 2. Quite apparently, the revenue had preferred review of the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the question of jurisdiction. As such, application is allowed and delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. ITA No. 116 of 2018 From the perusal of the appeal so preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, assailing order dated 6[th]February, 2015, passed by learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench ‘B’ Chandigarh (Annexure A-3), we find no substantial question of law to have been raised in the present appeal. 2. At this Stage, Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal, reserving liberty to file afresh by making suitable amendments, which the revenue undertakes to do so within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same. 4. As such, present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn, reserving liberty to file afresh on the same and subsequent cause of action within a period of four weeks from today. 5. It stands clarified, if the appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, the issue of limitation will not come in the way of the appellant and appeal shall be treated to have been filed within limitation. 6. The appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn, reserving liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge November 5, 2018 (raman/virender) (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge