SYED HIFAJAT ALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that the order dated 08.05.2025, passed in the application under proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, was not appealable and that a writ petition would be the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order on the Rule 24 application. The respondent did not oppose this request. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The substantive issues regarding the dismissal of the application under Rule 24 and the ITAT's finding on merits were not decided on their merits.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Syed Hifajat Ali, filed a Tax Case before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The appeal was against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Initially, the Court formulated a question of law regarding the dismissal of an application filed under proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Subsequently, another question was formulated concerning whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal on merits due to a perverse finding. During arguments, the appellant's counsel pressed the issue related to the order on the Rule 24 application. However, when confronted, the counsel conceded that the order dated 08.05.2025 on the Rule 24 application was not appealable and that a writ petition would be the appropriate remedy.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the application filed under proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal on merits by recording of finding which is perverse to the record? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The appellant initially focused on the dismissal of the application under proviso to Rule 24. However, the counsel fairly accepted that the order on this application was not appealable and that a writ petition would be the appropriate remedy. The appellant sought permission to withdraw the present appeal to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order on the Rule 24 application. Revenue: The respondent did not oppose the appellant's submission for withdrawal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 24
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CGHC010327382025
2026:CGHC:38444-DB
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 177 of 2025 1 - Syed Hifajat Ali, S/o Shri Syed Akbar Ali, Aged About 66 Years R/o. 144/145 Anand Bazar Road, Shree Nagar Extension, Tahsil And Distt. Indore- 452001 (M.P.)
... Appellant versus 1 - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent (Cause title as taken from the CIS) For Appellant : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri
Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board 31/08/2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J : 1. During the course of argument learned counsel for the appellant would submits that first question of law which was RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.09.05 11:24:16 +0530
2 formulated by this Court on 07.08.2025 is with regard to dismissal of application filed under proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (hereinafter reffered as “Rules, 1963”). However, subsequently, when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2025, another question of law was formulated “as to whether ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal on merits by recording of finding which is perverse to the record ?” 2. During course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant presses upon the order passed by the ITAT on application under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 and submits that if this Court answers the first question of law then order Annexure A/1 itself will go and the ITAT is to hear the appeal on merits. When learned counsel for the appellant is confronted with the pleadings made in the appeal and the prayer clause, he fairly accepted that the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in the application under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 is not challenged as it is not appealable. He submits that infact writ petition would lie. 3. After arguing for sometime he submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 by filing appropriate proceedings.
3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
