SUNRAM SYSTEMS INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3308/DEL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2017AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for AY 2004-05. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal should be granted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

The Assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 7/2/2008 passed by the Ld. CIT(A-I), New Delhi relating to assessment year 2004-05.

2.

During the hearing, Sh. Sameep Gupta, Adv./Counsel of the assessee has sought permission to withdraw the Application dated 19.9.2017. The contents of the said Application read as under:-

“The hearing of the captioned appeal is fixed before your Honour for today 19.9.2017.

Your Honour is most humbly requested that we would like to withdraw our appeal since the demand has duly been paid / adjusted against the refund for AY 2008-09 (copy attached herewith) and oblige.”

3.

Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the request of the Assessee’s counsel.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the Application dated 19.9.2017 filed by Sh. Sameep Gupta, Advocate/Counsel of the Assessee for withdrawal of appeal. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the aforesaid request of the assessee’s counsel for withdrawal of the Appeal and accordingly, we dismiss Appeal as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/09/2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →