The Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Mangal Singh (HUF) - 2020-LL-0217-8

Citation	2020-LL-0217-8
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad
Respondent Name	Mangal Singh (HUF)
Court	HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/02/2020
Assessment Year	1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 01/04/1996-18/02/1997
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	low tax effect • demand notice
Bot Summary:	AJAY TEWARI, J. 1 This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.(SS) A. No.25/Del/2009 for the assessment years from 01.04.1987 to 18.02.1997. 2 The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that this case would have to be withdrawn by the appellant in view of low tax effect as per Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh ITA No.561 of 2010 2 3 Learned counsel for the appellant states that he needs time. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a copy of the demand notice which, prima facie, bears out his contention. Liberty is granted to the appellant to file an application for revival of appeal, if something survives therein. 6 Since the main case is disposed of, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh.

ITA No.561 of 2010 [1] 1045 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.561 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.02.2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Appellant Versus Mangal Singh (HUF) Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for appellant-department. Mr. B. M. Monga, Advocate for respondent. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act against order dated 27.11.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.(SS) A. No.25/Del/2009 for assessment years from 01.04.1987 to 18.02.1997. [2] contention of learned counsel for respondent is that this case would have to be withdrawn by appellant in view of low tax effect as per Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh ITA No.561 of 2010 [2] [3] Learned counsel for appellant states that he needs time. [4] Learned counsel for respondent has handed over copy of demand notice which, prima facie, bears out his contention. [5] In circumstances, appeal is disposed of in view of aforesaid circular, keeping questions of law open. However, liberty is granted to appellant to file application for revival of appeal, if something survives therein. [6] Since main case is disposed of, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 17, 2020 pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad v. Mangal Singh (HUF)

Metadata

Judgment