IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 Income 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 MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN ***** Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent. ****** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) appellant-Revenue has approached this Court under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act ) against order dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure A-IV) passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.3292/DEL/2013 for assessment year 2006-07. 2. On March 21, 2017, learned counsel for respondent- assessee had raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present appeal as tax effect involved in appeal was ` 12,64,428/- which is less than minimum prescribed limit mentioned in Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. It was urged by learned counsel for respondent-assessee that appeal could not continue and appellant-Revenue in terms of aforesaid Circular should withdraw present appeal. Accordingly, case 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-04-2017 10:02:21 ::: ITA No.305 of 2016 -2- ------ was adjourned to 29.03.2017 but on that day, learned counsel for appellant prayed for further time to comply with order dated 21.03.2017 and case was listed for today. 3. Learned counsel for appellant-Revenue has produced affidavit of Smt. Anuradha Mookerjee, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad in Court today which has been filed acknowledging that tax effect involved in this appeal is ` 12,64,428/- which is less than minimum quantum limit prescribed in Circular No.21/2015 and prayer for withdrawal of present appeal has been made. same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 4. In view of said affidavit, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant-Revenue that he may be allowed to withdraw present appeal. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Needless to clarify that no opinion on question of law claimed by Revenue-appellant has been expressed and it shall be open for Revenue to agitate, if occasion so arises. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) April 05, 2017 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-04-2017 10:02:22 ::: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Amit Gupta