RAM AVTAR,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 3(1)-GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 1485/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee's counsel presented a detailed explanation for the withdrawal, citing a mistake in the Tax Audit Report regarding the reason for disallowance (delay in depositing employees' contribution to PF and ESI, wrongly reported as service tax delay) and the inability to obtain a corrigendum. The assessee also stated that the disallowance amount was not substantial. In light of these submissions and the assessee's request, the Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Avtar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order of the NFAC arose from an assessment order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The amount in dispute, as confirmed by the CIT(A), was Rs. 6,02,599/-. The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee. (Question of procedure) The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The reasons provided for withdrawal were: (1) The appeal was filed against the CIT(A) order confirming a disallowance of Rs. 6,02,599/-. (2) There was a delay in depositing employees' contribution to PF and ESI amounting to Rs. 6,02,599/-, which was mistakenly reported as a delay in depositing service tax by the auditor in the Tax Audit Report. (3) The assessee was unable to obtain a corrigendum letter from the auditor to substantiate the correct reason for the delay. (4) The amount of disallowance was not substantial. The assessee prayed for the appeal to be treated as withdrawn. The revenue did not record any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Megha Sidhu, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

ITA 1485/DEL/2026 RAM AVTAR

(hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069486718(1) arising out of the assessment ord

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.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →