BOMBAY TYRES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
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 allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as the penalty has been paid and the assessee does not wish to press the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order confirming a penalty under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has since paid the penalty and wishes to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be permitted to withdraw the appeal after paying the penalty and not wishing to press the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, AM :
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 22.08.2025 of first appellate authority, pertaining to assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
The assessee has filed application dated 09.03.2026, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The contents of the said letter are as under: Sub: Application for withdrawal of Appeal (ITA 6593/MUM/2025) Assessment Year 2017-18 PAN: AAGCB1604E With reference to the above-captioned appeal, the Appellant respectfully submits as under:
1. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22nd August 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.5,000/-.
2. Upon reconsideration of the matter, the Appellant does not wish to press the present appeal.
The Appellant has paid the penalty demand of Rs.5,000/- arising pursuant to the impugned penalty order u/s.271F dated 21 March, 2025.
Bombay Tyres vs. ITO 4. The Appellant therefore seeks permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal to withdraw the present appeal and dismiss the same as withdrawn/not pressed. Thanking you, 3. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) has no objection to the assessee’s prayer.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to permit the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
More judgments on Section 271F
- Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswai, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), SuratITA 643/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2008-09
- Krunal Bharat Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the Income Tax Officer…ITA 332/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Faiz Ala Faizi, Bangalore vs I.T.O., Ward - 54(2), KolkataITA 1374/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Imran Khan, Chandigarh vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 689/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Imran Khan, Manimajra vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 688/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
