Ita/141/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mohan Bottling Co Pl Td

IN THERE HIGH COURT QORKR PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 141 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ....... Appellant (!)$*$ M/s Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate|for the respondent.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 dated10.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), Chandigarh in ITA Nos. 1313/Chandi/98, for theassessment year 1991-92, raising the following substantial question oflaw: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatexcess of ‘security deposits’ over ‘refunds’ receivedby the assessee on sale of bottles is not a tradingrecelipt? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No.21/2015 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 thana20 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 21.04.2016T@eIN (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE