PARUL SETH KHANNA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 54 (4), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. As a result, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT challenging the orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). The assessee subsequently filed applications for withdrawal of these appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeals should be allowed to be withdrawn due to a subsequent rectification order by the AO that granted the relief sought.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY&
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5848/Del/2026 (AY 2018-19) & ITA NO. 5849/Del/2026 (AY 2019-20)
PARUL SETH KHANNA, VS. AO, WARD 54(4) D-69, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI -110024 (PAN: AGLPK7408H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. Rudra Bhelloria, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 13.8.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.8.2026
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals by the assessee are emanating from the orders of the Ld.
Addl/JCIT(A), Agra passed in appeal No. Addl/JCIT(A)Agra/10008/2017-18
and Appeal No. Addl/ JCIT(A)Agra/10008/2018-19 both dated 27.3.2026
relating to assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20.
At the very outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted
applicationS for withdrawal of both the captioned appeals by stating the
reasons that Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, Ward 70(1), Delhi vide
his rectification order u/s. 154 dated 13.7.2026 allowed the claim of the
assessee by granting relief as sought for u/s. 90/90A of the Act and as a result
thereof the dispute is no longer survives. Accordingly, it was prayed to permit
him to withdraw the aforesaid appeals. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid
request of the Ld. AR
After hearing both the sides and perusing the records and keeping in
view the aforesaid factual matrix, we deem it fit and proper to permit the
assessee to withdraw the captioned appeals, thus, both the appeals are
dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
SRBhatnaggar Date: 14-8-2026
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026