UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/PAT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 June 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 26.11.2022 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.

1.

Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Uday Shankar Arun 2. Shri Manish Rastogi, ld. Advocate of the assessee has made a prayer seeking the permission of the Bench to withdraw this appeal. Since the ld. D.R. has no objection in this regard, the permission as sought by Shri Rastogi, ld. Advocate of the assessee is granted and accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.06.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 21st day of June, 2023 Copies to :(1) Uday Shankar Arun, Mir Abu Saleh Road, Kotwali, Bihar-823001

(2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001, Bihar (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna, (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , (5) The Departmental Representative

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →