Ita/119/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Jay Dee Fabrics

ITA No. 119 of 2002 (O&M)-|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 119 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar. ....... Appellant )!*$+$ M/s Jay Dee Fabrics Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, 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 dated11.1.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AmritsarBench, Amritsar, in ITA No.507(ASR)/2001, for the assessmentyear 1996-97, raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances otthe case, the ITAT was right in law in applying thedecision given in respect of block period assessmentin the case of the same assessee to the normalassessment for the assessment year underconsideration? (11) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified inlaw in holding that the assessee was maintainingcomplete stock analysis in the absence of day-to-day consumption of raw material and production ofthe finished products? ITA No. 119 of 2002 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No21/2015 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 ©|20 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 shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 01.04.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE