Itr/1/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Patiala v. Shivinder Singh

ITR No. 1 of 2003 (O&M) -|- IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|§AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 1 of 2003 (O&M),ITR No.1-A of 2003 (O&M) andITR No.1-B of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala ..... Appellant +$,'-' Shri Shivinder Singh...... 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. Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocatefor the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This order will dispose of ITR Nos. I, 1-A and 1-B of 2003 ascommon question of law and fact are involved in the same.These referenceshave been filed in RA No. 75/Chandi/83 arising out of ITANo.196/Chandi/1982, for the assessment years 1977-78, RA_ No76/Chandi/83 arising out of ITA No. 195/Chandi/1982, for the assessmentyears 1977-78 and R.A. No. 83/Chandi/83, arising out of IT.A,No.128/Chandi/1982, for the assessment years 1977-78, raising thefollowing substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat in case Capital Gains arising from the sale ofagricultural land are to be taxed, the assessee has theoption to substitute its cost as on 28.2.1979, the datefrom which the agricultural lands, due to an amendmentin law, became as asset? (28.2.79 should be 28.2.70). 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 referencesas the tax effect involved is less than ~v20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of thereferences in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the references by the revenue shall notbe taken 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