M/S Anand International, Panipat v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.274 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:21.02.2014 M/s Anand International, Panipat versus .... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. ***** Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.(Oral) 1.This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against the orders of ITAT Delhi Bench in ITA No.1389/DEL/2006 dated 27.07.2007 relating to the assessment year 2001-02 confirming the order dated 23.11.2005 whereby Commissioner of Income Tax had initiated revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. 2.Briefly few facts as narrated by learned counsel for the respondent may be noticed. The assessment in the present case was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the assessing officer on 16.01.2004. The CIT revising the said assessment, passed an order on 23.11.2005 under Section 263 of the Act. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revenue that in pursuance thereof, the fresh order of assessment was passed on 15.12.2006 whereby an addition of Rs.36,81,421/- was made by disallowing commission expenses incurred by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal where CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2008 deleted the addition of Rs.36,81,421/- made on account of commission expenses. The Revenue against the said order filed second appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2009. Learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the said order has become final as no further appeal has been filed because of the low revenue effect and, therefore, the matter raised in the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has no instructions in this regard. 4.In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present appeal as infructuous. However, in case the statement of the counsel for Revenue is found to be incorrect, liberty is granted to the appellant to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 21.02.2014sonia (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE