The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. M/S State Bank Of Patiala

ITA No.29 of 2014- ]- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.29 of 2014 (O&M)Date of Decision:02.09.2014 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala .. Appellant| Versus M/s State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent The Mail, Patiala CORAM:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate withMs. Rajni Paul, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) .C.M. No.12887CII of 2014 Application is allowed, as prayed for. .C.M. No.LJZ88CII of 2014 Annexures R-1 to R-5 filed along witn the application are taken on record. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. .C.M. No.12889CII of 2014 &LT.A.No.29 of 2014 1.The revenue-appellant approached this Court under Section260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) challengingthe order dated 27.06.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘ITAT') passed inM.A.No.5/Chd/2013 tn ITA Nos.535/Chd/2005 in the case of M/s State ITA No.29 of 2014- 2- Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala for the assessment year 1994-95.The revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing theRevenues M.As. now by involving the section 254(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and by holding that recallcould be done only within four years, even when it,vide its orders dated 22.12.2006 & 24.9.2008, hadallowed liberty to the Revenue to approacn tneTribunal after receipt of the requisite permission fromthe Committee of Disputes? (ii) Whetner in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing theRevenues M.As. ignoring the fact that now there is noneed for the permission from the Committee ofDisputes on the bDasis of decision of the HonbleSupreme Court in the case of Electronic Corporation ofIndia v. UOI 332 ITR 58(SC)?” ? Learned counsel for the revenue has produced copy of thecommunication No.CIT/PTA/Judi/2014-15/2240 dated 29.08.2014,which is taken on record. It reads as under:- “In this connection, it is stated that during the courseof the preparation of reply to be filed in response tothe above mentioned C.M. filed by the assessee, it hascome to lignt that the quantum addition in respect ofwhich interest u/s 234B was charged has already beendeleted and the matter of quantum addition hasattained finality. After tne deletion of quantumaddition, no interest u/s 234B is chargeable in thecase of assessee for the year under considering. Theissue of charging of interest u/s 234B_ beingconsequential to the quantum addition, the same isnot required to be followed up even thougn substantialquestions of law, as formed in the appeal, do arise intnis case. As such, you are requested to pleasewithdraw the appeal regarding the issue of charging ofinterest u/s 234B.” ITA No.29 of 2014- 3- 3)In view thereof, learned counsel for the revenue prays forwithdrawal of the present appeal. 4Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) |. JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) O27.09.72014 |JUDGE aart!