ITA No.29 of 2014 - 1- IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.29 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.09.2014 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus M/s State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent Mall, Patiala CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for appellant-revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajni Paul, Advocate for respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.12887-CII of 2014 Application is allowed, as prayed for. C.M. No.12888-CII of 2014 Annexures R-1 to R-5 filed along with application are taken on record. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. C.M. No.12889-CII of 2014 & I.T.A.No.29 of 2014 1. revenue-appellant approached this Court under Section 260-A of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') challenging order dated 27.06.2013 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for brevity, 'ITAT') passed in M.A.No.5/Chd/2013 in ITA Nos.535/Chd/2005 in case of M/s State AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.29 of 2014 - 2- Bank of Patiala, Mall, Patiala for assessment year 1994-95. revenue has proposed following substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in dismissing Revenue's M.As. now by involving section 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and by holding that recall could be done only within four years, even when it, vide its orders dated 22.12.2006 & 24.9.2008, had allowed liberty to Revenue to approach Tribunal after receipt of requisite permission from Committee of Disputes? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in dismissing Revenue's M.As. ignoring fact that now there is no need for permission from Committee of Disputes on basis of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Electronic Corporation of India v. UOI 332 ITR 58(SC)? 2. Learned counsel for revenue has produced copy of communication No.CIT/PTA/Judl/2014-15/2240 dated 29.08.2014, which is taken on record. It reads as under:- In this connection, it is stated that during course of preparation of reply to be filed in response to above mentioned C.M. filed by assessee, it has come to light that quantum addition in respect of which interest u/s 234B was charged has already been deleted and matter of quantum addition has attained finality. After deletion of quantum addition, no interest u/s 234B is chargeable in case of assessee for year under considering. issue of charging of interest u/s 234B being consequential to quantum addition, same is not required to be followed up even though substantial questions of law, as formed in appeal, do arise in this case. As such, you are requested to please withdraw appeal regarding issue of charging of interest u/s 234B. AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.29 of 2014 - 3- 3. In view thereof, learned counsel for revenue prays for withdrawal of present appeal. 4. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) 02.09.2014 JUDGE aarti AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. M/s State Bank of Patiala