IEI SHAREHOLDING (CULTURAL ACTIVITIES 1987) TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) ADDL / JCIT (A), Panchkula [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’) passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), date of order 05/09/2024 for A.Y. 2022-23. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru, passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 16/03/2023.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Id. AddI/JCIT(A), the Appellant begs to prefer the present appeal on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld First Appellate Authority erred in facts as well as in law by treating the appellant as an Association of Person.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld First Appellate Authority erred in facts as well as in law by determining the tax liability of the Appellant at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR).

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld First Appellate Authority has erred in facts as well in law, in computing the tax liability of the Appellant by applying section 1678 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the appellant is not an Association of Person and merely acting as a representative.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld First Appellate Authority has erred in facts as well in law, in not computing the tax liability of the Appellant under section 164(1) of the Act read with proviso (iv), at the slab rates

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A) has erred in holding the delay in filing of the appeal by the Appellant as without ‘sufficient cause. And dismissing the appeal without any discussion on merits.

6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A) has erred in disposing off the appeal without granting the Appellant Trust an opportunity of being heard

7. That the Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, or otherwise, any or all of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing, and to submit such statements, documents, and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.” The assessee, vide its letter dated 15thJanuary, 2025 filed in this office on 3. 20/01/2025, sought to withdraw the appeal on account of the following reasons: -

“The captioned appeal has been filed by the Employee Benefit Trust of M/s lon Exchange India Ltd, relates to rate of tax to be applied on income earned by the Trust. The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), vide its order [intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act) dated 16.03.2023 has taxed the income of the trust at Maximum Marginal Rate, while the Appellant Trust seeks to be taxed at slab rates. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant as the condonation for delay was rejected and without any discussion on merits.

The Appellant Trust had moved an application u/s 154 of the Act on 24.10.2024, seeking the CPC to rectify the impugned intimation passed u/s 143(1), to restrict the tax on the income of the Appellant to slab rate. The relief sought in the rectification application is similar to the relief sought in the subject appeal before the Tribunal. The CPC has processed the rectification application on 14.12.2024 and granted us the relief sought therein, by restricting the rate of tax to slab rate.

As the relief sought before the Hon'ble Tribunal has been granted by the CPC in the rectification application, the Appellant submits that the subject appeal has become infructuous. Hence, we humbly pray for withdrawal of the subject appeal filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal.”