Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. M/S Hari Chand & Company, Hoshiarpur

ITAAT12012 -|- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-271-2012 (O&M)Date of Decision: 24.9. 201 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar Versus ...Appellant. M/s Hari Chand & Company, Hoshiarpur ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant,Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1]Learned counsel for the assessee referred to order dated!26.2.2010 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”], Jalandhar to substantiate that the taxinvolved in the appeal is less than450 lakhs as demanded by the revenue.As per the order of the CIT(A), the income tax demanded was 439 ,75,983/-,2 Learned counsel for the revenue referred to para 7 of the appealwherein it has been mentioned that the tax effect involved in this case isL65,07,564/-. On a query being put to learned counsel for the revenue, itwas submitted that the tax effect has been calculated on the income assessedat =88,84,960/- and the addition of422,10,000/-. As per the order of theAssessing Officer, the total income assessed is=1,10,94,960/-. Taking theassessed income at=1,10,94,960/-, the tax effect thereon would not be465,07,564/- as pleaded by the revenue. Accordingly, accepting the plea of ITAAT12012 -)| the learned counsel for the assessee, the tax effect is taken to beL39,75,985/-, ='Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since thetax effect is taken as439,75,985/-, the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn inview of the Circular No.03/2018, dated 11[th]July, 2018, issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he prayed that libertybe granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal incase something survives therein. &'Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is,however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as Claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE September 24, 2018 9># (AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE Whether Speaking/ReasonedWhether Reportable Yes/NoYes/No