GOPAL PEERLAGUDEM,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2265/HYD/2025Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 April 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the Assessing Officer had not made any additions in the revised assessment. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous and allowed to be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. The Assessing Officer, in compliance with the PCIT's order, passed a revised assessment order. The assessee then sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the PCIT's order is maintainable when the subsequent assessment order complied with the PCIT's directions and the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2265/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Gopal Peerlagudem, KUMMARIGUDEM, The Income Tax Officer, Kothur Mandal vs. Ward-1, Mahabubnagar Dist. MAHABUBNAGAR–509 001. PIN – 509 228 PAN BZOPP3719F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Vikas Agarwal, CA For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 29.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 23.01.2025 of the learned PCIT, Hyderabad-4, Hyderabad passed u/sec.263 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2 ITA.No.2265/Hyd./2025 2. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the Order in pursuance to the Order passed by the learned PCIT, Hyderabad-4, Hyderabad u/sec.263 of the Act, has allowed the claim of the assessee and therefore, the assessee does not want to pursue the present appeal and the same may be allowed to be withdrawn. He has also filed an application/petition for withdrawal of the present appeal.

3.

On the other hand, the learned DR has not raised any objection if the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee and learned DR as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 16.02.2026 in pursuance to the Order passed by the PCIT u/sec.263 of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer has not made any addition/variation to the returned income of the assessee. The assessee has also filed a petition for withdrawal of the appeal as under:

3 ITA.No.2265/Hyd./2025

5.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal of the assessee becomes infructuous and the same is allowed to be withdrawn. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed being withdrawn.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

4 ITA.No.2265/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of the hearing i.e., on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MANJUNATHA G.] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 29th April, 2026. VBP Copy to : Gopal Peerlagudem, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, 1-1- 1. 298/2/B/3, Sowbhagya Avenue Apts. 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1, Hyderabad – 500 020. Telangana. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, DEO Office 2. Road, MAHABUBNAGAR - 509 001. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad-4, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER Digitally signed VADREVU by VADREVU PRASADA RAO PRASADA Date: RAO 2026.04.29 17:51:29 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →