VIKAS KUMAR,BETTIAH vs. NFAC, DELHI

ITA 661/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 April 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the assessee does not have the liberty to change their mind at the second appellate stage after having expressed a written intention to withdraw the appeal at the first appellate stage. The Tribunal found the assessee's ground for pursuing the matter as an afterthought and not maintainable. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the order of the NFAC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that a withdrawal request, once made and acted upon by the lower appellate authority, generally precludes the assessee from reviving the appeal on a change of mind, especially without a compelling reason or proper procedure for reconsideration. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vikas Kumar, filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. During the proceedings before the NFAC, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The NFAC, treating this as the assessee not pressing any grounds, dismissed the appeal. The assessee, aggrieved by this dismissal, filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench. The ITAT heard the matter virtually at Kolkata. The procedural history involves the initial appeal to the NFAC, the request for withdrawal, the dismissal by the NFAC, and the subsequent appeal to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the assessee had previously requested withdrawal of the appeal before the lower appellate authority (NFAC) and the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal on that basis? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that while an application for withdrawal was filed before the NFAC, the situation changed subsequently, and the assessee wished to pursue the appeal on merits. The assessee requested the ITAT to remand the matter back to the NFAC for adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned order, arguing that once the assessee requested withdrawal before the NFAC, no issue survived for decision on merits before the NFAC, and therefore, the appeal before the ITAT should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA

(Assessment Year 2017-18) Vikas Kumar, Michael Colony, Baswaria, Bettiah, West Champaran - 845438 [PAN: APHPK1184P] ..............…...…………….... Appellant vs. NFAC, New Delhi -110001 ................................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Ashish Kr. Agrawal, CA Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 25.09.2024 for AY 2017-18, in which at para 5 page 3 of the impugned order it is recorded that the assessee had requested for allowing him to withdraw the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) had treated this matter as not pressing any of the grounds of appeal by the assessee and had accordingly dismissed the appeal.

1.1 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT by challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of principles of natural justice and also on merit.

Vikas Kumar 2. The Ld. AR mentioned that indeed they had filed an application for withdrawal of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but he requested that the same may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication since, thereafter, the situation had changed and the assessee was interested in pursuing the appeal further.

2.1 The Ld. DR supported the impugned order and mentioned that once the appeal was requested for withdrawal at the stage of Ld. CIT(A) then there was no question of any issue surviving for a decision on merits before him.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. The Ld. AR was queried about the specific intention to withdraw the appeal at the first appeal stage and the change of opinion thereafter. The Ld. AR mentioned that thereafter certain situation changed and the assessee was now interested in pursuing the matter on merit. We find that this is very unusual and the assessee does not have the liberty to change his mind at second appeal stage when at first appeal stage he had expressed a written intention to withdraw the appeal. We find that this ground for pursuing the matter, as an afterthought, is not maintainable before us and hence we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the present appeal.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →