M/S KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT which was delayed by 338 days. The assessee later filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they were not pursuing the matter.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be permitted to withdraw the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai, dated 16.03.2021 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]..
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 338 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay. By referring to the condonation petition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for condoning the delay against which, the ld. DR has not objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. In view of the above, the delay is condoned.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, by filing an application, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as they are not pursuing the matter, the assessee may be permitted to withdraw the appeal, against which, the ld. DR has not opposed to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19th September, 2022 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- 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