MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 750/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 July 2023AY 2018-192 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the assessee's counsel. The counsel stated that subsequent to the Rectification Order and the Order Giving Effect, there was no tax effect remaining for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Consequently, the assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the original rectification order was made, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, against a Rectification Order dated 19.04.2023, passed by the DCIT under section 154 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The appeal was heard on 17.07.2023. The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that due to the Rectification Order and the subsequent Order Giving Effect, there was no tax effect for the assessment year 2018-19, and therefore, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the assessee's submission that there is no tax effect for the Assessment Year 2018-19 due to a Rectification Order and consequent Order Giving Effect. This issue turns on the procedural aspect of withdrawing an appeal when the underlying tax effect has been eliminated. Contentions: Assessee: The assessee, through its counsel Shri. Harsh Shukla, Advocate, submitted that in view of the Rectification Order and the consequent Order Giving Effect, there is no tax effect for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and hence the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal. Revenue: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Harsh Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 17.07.2023Pronounced: 17.07.2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.750/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Tower D, 10th and 11th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(1), Global Technology Park, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAECM 5559 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Harsh Shukla, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President :

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the Rectification Order of DCIT dated 19.04.2023, passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2.

When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for assessee Shri. Harsh Shukla, Advocate, submitted that in view of the Rectification Order and the consequent Order Giving Effect, and in pursuance thereto, there is no tax effect for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and hence the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

IT(TP)A No.750/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 2

3.

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

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 17.07.2023. /NS/*

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →