Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Balwant Sales (P) Ltd
High Court
29 Feb 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Balwant Sales (P) Ltd
Date of order
29 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Balwant Sales (P) Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: On the aforesaid premises, it was submitted that the tax effect,even if the order of the Tribunal is set aside, would be less than the monetarylimit prescribed in the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, issued by theC.B.D.T., New Delhi.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 919 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 29.02.2016
Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana
Versus
M/s Balwant Sales (P) Ltd.
. . . Appellant
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate
for the appellant-revenue.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that theCommissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (in short 'the CIT') has initiated therevisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forbrevity 'the Act'). However, the addition of `12,25,400/- was made underSection 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits in respect ofseven persons. On the aforesaid premises, it was submitted that the tax effect,even if the order of the Tribunal is set aside, would be less than the monetarylimit prescribed in the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, issued by theC.B.D.T., New Delhi. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant-revenuestates that keeping in view the aforesaid circular, the present appeal may bedismissed as withdrawn. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to therevenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case somethingsurvives therein.
2.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however,clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to beaffirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriatecase.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
J.Ram
(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.