SMT. PARIMALA ACHARYA,DAVANGERE vs. PR. CIT, DAVANGERE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1033/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 July 2017AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they received relief in the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the 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. The Assessing Officer's order was set aside by the Pr.CIT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's appeal against the Pr.CIT's order should be allowed to be withdrawn due to subsequent relief received.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT-2), Bengaluru
Hearing: 13.07.2017Pronounced: 14.07.2017

Date of hearing : 13.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere [hereinafter called as “the Pr.CIT”] passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“hereinafter called as “the Act”] setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer.

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has moved an application with the submission that in the consequential order passed by the AO, the assessee has got relief, therefore she does not want to press the appeal. Thus, the assessee may be allowed to withdraw the appeal. The revenue has no objection in this regard. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of July, 2017.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →