PARVIN KUMAR NAGPAL,M/S KHEM CHAND NAGPAL vs. ADDL JCIT (A)-8, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 620/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2024AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeal via a letter dated 04.05.2024. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the appeal had been inadvertently filed before the Mumbai Benches when it was intended to be filed before the Jodhpur Bench. Furthermore, a copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench on 20.09.2024 was made available to the Tribunal. In light of these facts, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. No finding was given on the merits of the grounds of appeal, as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Parvin Kumar Nagpal, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2022-23. The appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s order passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee later filed a withdrawal letter dated 04.05.2024, stating that the appeal was inadvertently filed before the Mumbai Bench instead of the Jodhpur Bench. A copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench on 20.09.2024 was also made available. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal, the subsequent request for withdrawal, and the availability of an order from the correct bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal order passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT, Mumbai is bad in law, illegal, and against facts (Question of law). The assessee contended that the order was bad in law, illegal, and against facts. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the Ld. Addl./JCIT, Mumbai erred in not allowing credit of TDS claimed under Section 194Q of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the wrong interpretation of law and facts (Question of mixed law and fact). The assessee argued that the TDS credit under Section 194Q was wrongly denied due to an incorrect interpretation of law and facts. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 194Q

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri Dharmveer D. Yadav
Hearing: 10.10.2024Pronounced: 30.10.2024

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Dharmveer D. Yadav Date of Hearing 10.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the appeal order passed by the Ld. Addl./ JCIT, Mumbai is bad in law, illegal and against facts.

2. That, the Ld. Addl./ JCIT, Mumbai erred in not allowing credit of TDS claimed under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the wrong interpretation of law and facts.”

3. At the outset, it was seen that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal vide latter dated 04.05.2024 on the ground that the appeal had been inadvertently filed in Mumbai Benches whereas it was intended to be filed before the Jodhpur Bench. Subsequently, a copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Jodhpur Bench on 20.09.2024 has also been made available.

4.

In view of above facts, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2024.

More judgments on Section 194Q

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194Q →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →