Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Amit Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209Income Tax Appeal No.305 of 2016|Date of decision: April 05, 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Amit Gupta c/o M/s Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN """"" Present:Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. """""" AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) Tne appellant-Revenue has approached this Court undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against theorder dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure A-IV) passed by the Income TaxiAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITANo.3292/DEL/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2DOn March 21, 2017, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee had raised ae preliminary opjection regarding themaintainability of the present appeal as the tax effect involved in theappeal wasL12,64,428/- which is less than the minimum prescribedlimit mentioned in Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. It was urged by learnedcounsel for the respondent-assessee that the appeal could notcontinue and the appellant-Revenue in terms of the aforesaidCircular should withdraw the present appeal. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 29.03.2017 but on that day, learned counsel for theappellant prayed for further time to comply with order dated 21.03.2017and the case was listed for today. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue has producedan affidavit of Smt. Anuradha Mookerjee, Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabad in Court today which has_ been filedacknowledging that the tax effect involved in this appeal is412,64,428/- which Is less than the minimum quantum limit prescribedin Circular No.21/2015 and a prayer for withdrawal of the presentappeal has been made. The same Is taken on record, subject to alljust exceptions, 4In view of the said affidavit, It was submitted by learnedcounsel for the appellant-Revenue that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal. 5.Dismissed as withdrawn. 6.Needless to clarify that no opinion on the question of lawclaimed by the Revenue-appellant has been expressed and It shall beopen for the Revenue to agitate, if occasion so arises. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE April 05, 2017 sonia gugnanl (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable’ Yes/No