Ita/330/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana v. Vardhman Holdings Ltd

ITA No. 330 of 2008 (O&M)-|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 330 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant *"+%,% Vardhman Holdings Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated31.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), in ITA No.656/Chandi/2006, for the assessment year1994-95, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified intreating the re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 asinvalid inspite of the tact that the notice u/s 148 wasissued with the prior approval of the CIT, which isaccording to Section 149(1)(a)(i1) of I.T. Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'bleIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified inholding that the A.O. was not justified in decliningthe claim of the assessee for depreciation @ 100%| -)| on EYCs inspite of the fact that each EYC machineworked together with spindle and forms part ofplant and machinery? 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 |=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 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 29.03.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE