JK HOPE & HEALTH FOUNDATION,SRINAGAR vs. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 940/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 July 2026AY 2025-262 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The delay in filing was not addressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(Exemptions). The assessee later filed a request to withdraw the appeal. There was also a significant delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn upon the assessee's request.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH ‘DB’ : AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA

Hearing: 20.07.2026

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short] dated 05.07.2024 for the Assessment Year 2025-26. 2. None present on behalf of the assessee. However, we observed from the records that the assessee has filed a request for withdrawal of the appeal vide

2 letter dated 18.07.2026. Accordingly, we allow to withdraw the present appeal and the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

We also observed that there is a delay of 428 day in filing the present appeal. As we have already dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, we are not dealing with the condonation of delay application.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the asses

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →