CREATIVE TANNERY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., COMPANY CIRCLE - 1(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1663/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 November 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee itself requested withdrawal of the appeal, and there was no statutory obligation for the CIT(A) to decide on merits when the assessee sought withdrawal. Therefore, the assessee's current appeal against the withdrawal is without merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made by the AO. During the appeal, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as taxes were paid and they did not wish to challenge the additions. The CIT(A) allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the withdrawal of appeal without deciding on merits, when the assessee requested such withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.06.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Kolkata-20 [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment proceedings carried out u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (in short the “AO”) made the addition of Rs.16,05,030/- by applying 8% profit rate in respect of unaccounted/out of books sales made by the assessee. The AO further made the addition of Rs.6,79,457/- on account of disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act.

AY: 2018-19,Creative Tannery Ltd.

3.

Being aggrieved by the said addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee made a request for withdrawal of the appeal stating, as under: “This is with reference to our appeal. Please note that we have already paid taxes assessed by the Ld. ACIT. Hence, we do not want to challenge addition made for the AY. Hence, we request you to drop the proceedings and oblige.”

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Now, assessee has come in appeal pleading that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the assessee to withdraw its appeal without considering the validity of the additions on merits.

5.

It is to be noted that the assessee, itself, had made a request before the Ld. CIT(A) that it was not interested in contesting the additions made by the AO and that it had already paid due taxes and that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as withdrawn. Though, there was a discretion available to the Ld. CIT(A) either to accept the aforesaid request of the assessee or to reject it, if it was a case, in his view, of enhancement of income, however, there was no statutory obligation cast upon the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, even though, the assessee has requested that its appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of this, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 18.11.2024. JD Sr. P.S AY: 2018-19,Creative Tannery Ltd.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →