ZAMINDARA TIMBER PRIVATE LTD,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1408/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2022AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the appeal had become infructuous and requested to withdraw it. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed against the assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee as it had become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI

Before: DR. B.R.R.KUMAR & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 18.07.2022Pronounced: 22.07.2022

The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order u/s 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20.03.2020 ,in assessment year 2015-16 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Revisional Authority) arising out of assessment order dated 17.04.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ITO, Ward-5, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer ‘AO’).

ITA-1408Del.2020 2

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has the instruction to withdraw this appeal since it has become infructuous and filed an application to that effect. The Ld. DR has no objection if the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →