N.MUTHUKUMAAR,COIMBATORE vs. THE PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 August 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was initially time-barred by 51 days. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal considering the Covid-19 pandemic. During the hearing, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal after it was admitted for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI SONJOY SARMA

For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 16.08.2022Pronounced: 18.08.2022

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश

PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore – 1 vide order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020- 21/1031819395(1); dated 27.03.2021. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore for the Assessment

:: 2 :: I.T.A No.:256/CHNY/2021 Year 2015 – 2016 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), vide order dated 22.09.2017.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following Grounds that are as under:

[1] The order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is against the law and facts of the case.

[2] The learned PCIT erred in passing an order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the various submissions and explanations made at the time of assessment.

[3] The learned PCIT ought to have considered the fact that the Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a beneficial provision which is to be interpreted liberally as well as favourable to the taxpayer.

[4] The learned PCIT ought to have accepted the facts and case laws which have been submitted in the reply filed on 05.03.2021.

[5] The learned PCIT ought to have considered the fact in case of two contradicting views, then the view favourable to the Appellant to be implemented.

[6] The learned PCIT ought to have considered that the Assessing Officer has verified every aspect before passing the final order.

[7] The learned PCIT ought to have considered that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation does not have any restrictions and the taxpayer is given free hand to set off against any source of income.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the Assessee is time barred by limitation by 51 days and :: 3 :: I.T.A No.:256/CHNY/2021 Assessee has filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the Assessee’s legal consultant advising the Assessee to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal for claiming relief but however it was noticed that the appeal has already barred limitation and that the period falling under limitation is during the outbreak of ‘Covid-19’ pandemic. Hence, the Hon’ble Bench took into cognizance the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the “Suo Moto WP 03/2020 dated 20.03.2020 while considering the condonation of delay. It is a fact that ‘Covid-19’ pandemic was prevalent during the period and in term of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 51 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

4.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted before the Bench that the Assessee intends to withdraw the appeal and in this regard has filed an application dated 16.08.2022

:: 4 :: I.T.A No.:256/CHNY/2021 seeking withdrawal of this appeal. The same is placed on record. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative has not raised any objection in this regard.

5.

After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties and the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Assessee and on considering the request, we permit the withdrawal of the appeal by the Assessee and accordingly the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →