THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers

ITA 764/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 February 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the assessee's withdrawal request, and with no objection from the Departmental Representative, allowed the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee later requested to withdraw the appeal, informing the Tribunal that the demand raised by the Centralized Processing Centre under Section 143(1) has been made NIL after condonation of delay in filing Form 10B.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal before the ITAT can be dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request after the underlying tax demand has been rectified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh dated 27/06/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2020-21.

3. The assessee sent the above request letter for withdrawing the appeal filed by them before this Tribunal in . The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn.

We heard Ld D.R, who did not object to the prayer of the assessee. We have perused the said letter and recorded the letter given by the assessee and dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →