HEG LIMITED ,MANDIDEEP RAISEN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8771/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2026AY 2000-01Bench: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was wrongly filed before it. The assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, which was not controverted by the DR. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which arose out of a penalty order passed by the AO. The appeal was filed before the Delhi Bench of the ITAT instead of the Indore Bench.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was wrongly filed before the Tribunal and if it should be dismissed as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Kumar Chaudhary
Hearing: 09.03.2026Pronounced: 11.03.2026

(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shivam Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the Assesseee is directed against the order dated 30.10.2025 of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the penalty order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the ACIT 1(1), Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2000-01.

2.

Instead of filing the appeal before the Indore Bench, the appeal has been wrongly filed before us and therefore, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal; such contention made by him has not been controverted by the Ld. DR and considering the above facts, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →