ACIT221, MUMBAI vs. ASHOK NAVINCHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7587/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal for assessment year 2010-11. The Department of Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a technical error where the wrong name (Ashok Navinchand Shah instead of Bharat Navinchand Shah) was initially recorded on the acknowledgment. The appeal was refiled with the correct name.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal can be withdrawn due to a clerical error in filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.12.2025Pronounced: 16.12.2025

Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by revenue arises out of order dated 21/11/2025 passed by Ld.CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, Ld.DR has filed the following letter seeking withdrawal of the present appeal. The said letter is scanned and annexed as under:-

***This space has been left blank intentionally, P.T.O.***

3.

Based on the above submissions filed by Ld.DR, present appeal filed by revenue is allowed to be withdrawn.

1.

Accordingly grounds raised by revenue stands dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →