SANJAY VITHOBA DUDHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 745/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 March 2021AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263(1). The assessee subsequently filed a withdrawal application stating the issue was resolved in a consequential order.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be withdrawn due to the resolution of the underlying issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

Hearing: 25.02.2021Pronounced: 01.03.2021

ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolhapur (‘PCIT’) passed u/s 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

When the matter had come up for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, vide letter dated 07.11.2020, the assessee submitted that the issue in this appeal stands resolved in the consequential order to the order u/s 263 of the Act. Hence, the appeal had become infructuous. Accordingly, the appellant sought permission of the Tribunal to withdraw the appeal.

More judgments on Section 263(1)

All 52 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →