RAGHUNATH SARAOGI,DURGAPURR vs. PCIT, CENTAL, PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and settled the matter. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal can be withdrawn as the matter has been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raghunath Saraogi…………………………………………………….…..……Appellant 5/2 Bengal Ambuja City Centre, Durgapur-713216. [PAN: AJIPS7251E] vs. PCIT(Central), Patna……............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Vishal Agarwal, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 16, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : December 17, 2024 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.02.2022 of the PCIT (Central), Patna [hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT’] exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay. 2.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee has opted for Direct Tax Vivav Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘scheme’) and has received Form 2 Certificate under sub-section (1) of section 92 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, wherein, it is determined that the assessee has to pay Rs.659346/- vide order dated 29.11.2024. In the intervening time, the assessee has also paid a sum of Rs.6,59,346/- vide challan dated 06.12.2024 to the competent authority. Therefore, the ld. Counsel prayed that this appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn as the matter has already been settled under the scheme.
The ld. DR did not raise any objection to the above prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.
We, after hearing the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee has opted the scheme of 2024 and has settled the matter as per the scheme. Accordingly, the assessee has requested to withdraw the present appeal. In view of the above, we allow the assessee to withdraw the present appeal and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Kolkata, the 17th December, 2024.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026