What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue was resolved through rectification and the appeal had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee inadvertently remitted TDS for AY 2019-20 but it was recorded as AY 2020-21. The CIT(A) rejected the rectification request. Subsequently, a rectification application was accepted, correcting the AY to 2019-20.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the underlying issue has been rectified and rendered infructuous.

M/S. Spl Towers Private Limited vs ACIT | ITAT Bangalore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CA

For Respondent: Shri V Parithvel, JCIT

ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the ld.Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant remitted Rs.3,95,093/- as TDS on 26/11/2019 pertaining to Asst. Year 2019-20, which was inadvertently mentioned as Asst. Year 2020-21. The request for rectification made by the assessee was not allowed by the ld.CIT(A) and thus, instant appeal filed before us. However, subsequently upon a rectification application filed by the appellant, which was completed by TRACES and credit of Rs.3,95,093/- remitted by the appellant on 26/11/2019 shown as pertaining to Asst. Year 2019-20. In view of the matter, the ld.Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal becomes infructuous and does not want to press the matter.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal as infructuous.

M/S. SPL TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-3(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments