Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Vinod Goyal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHwhe ae al ITA No. 214 of 2015 (O&M)Date of decision: 04.02.2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Vs. Vinod Goyal ...Kespondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICEK RAJ RAHUL GAR Present :Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate withMr. B.M. Monga, Advocatefor the respondent, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) On January 25, 2016, there was a dispute between learnedcounsel for the parties regarding quantum of tax effect involved in thisappeal. According to learned counsel for the revenue, the tax effect 1sL23,00,546/- whereas learned counsel for the assessee had claimed that thetax effect 1s approximately412.00 lacs to.a13.00 lacs. Learned counsel forthe revenue had sought time to verify the said fact. ? Today, it has been candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the tax effect involved 1s less than=a20) lacs which 1s thmonetary limit prescribed bycircular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issuedby the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. In view of the above circular, learned counselfor the revenue requests for withdrawal of the appeal. However, he prayedthat liberty be granted to the revenueto file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, 3]Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It 1s,MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARIhewseVvereclarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be2016.02.09 16:09I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document ITA No. 214 of2015 (O&M) taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as claimed by the revenue 1s being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.| 04.02.2016WdaSse (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE(RAJ RAHUL GARG)JUDGE