Ita/900/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Ludhiana v. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd. Etc. Ludhiana

ITA No. 900 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|§AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 900 of 2010 (O&M)Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ....... Appellant )!*$+$ M/s Avon Cycles Ltd., ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK 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, Advocatefor the respondent.for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated30.04.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBenches (B) Chandigarh, in ITA No. 25/Chd/2009, for the assessment year2006-07, raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding theorder of Commissioner of Income-tax passed undersection 263 of the Act as invalid and in quashing thesame on the issue of disallowance under section 14A ofthe Act? (141) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thcase, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding theorder of Commissioner of Income-tax passed underSection 263 of the Act as invalid and in quashing the -)| same on the issue of disallowance under Section 14A ofthe Act though the assessment made by the A.O. waserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenuewithin the meaning of Section 263 of the Act? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that inview oft 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, as thetax effect involved is less thanLy20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty begranted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in casesomething survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not betaken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue asclaimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 11.05.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE