Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel stated that the appellant had received relief in the consequential order.
Held
The assessee's counsel expressed an intention to withdraw the appeal due to receiving relief in the consequential order. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee received relief in the consequential order.
Sections Cited
263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM
Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. MPG Hotels and Infrastructure .......... Appellant Ventures Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Sahasraram, Elankom Gardens, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram [PAN: AAECM 1840 M] vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant by: Shri Kuryan Thomas, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This is appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Koch [PCIT] dated 30.03.2021 u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant got relief in the consequential Meat Products of India Ltd. order passed in pursuant to the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, therefore, he expressed his intention to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 08th August, 2025 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.