Ita/10/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Cremica Agro Foods Ltd. G.t. Road, Ludhiana

ITA No. 10 of 2012 (O&M)-|- IN THERE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 10 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant ( )#*# M/s Cremica Agro Foods Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated29.7.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B), in ITA No. 1275/CHD/2010, for the assessment year 2005-O6, raising the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law inconfirming the order of CIT(A) dated 13.8.2010 byobserving that the order of ITAT dated 30.4.2010,quashing the order of the CIT u/s 263 has not beenStayed by the Hon'ble High Court whereas thedecision of the same is still pending before theHon'ble High Court? (11) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the -)- case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in notdeciding the issue on merits but referred its earlierorder dated 30.4.2010 passed on the issue of 263whereas the Revenue has not accepted the same andis in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, thedecision of which is still pending? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview of circular NoJ21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than=a20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, Clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall notbe taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legalissue as Claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 02.05.2016rTeem (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE