What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee's plea was accepted by the Assessing Officer, making the appeal proceedings infructuous. The assessee then withdrew the appeal.

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Principal CIT. During the hearing, the assessee's representative stated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's plea in the finalized assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal has become infructuous due to subsequent acceptance of the assessee's plea by the Assessing Officer.

Atharva Construction Co. vs PCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Ganatra

For Respondent: Shri A.Ramachandran

Hearing: 21/09/2016Pronounced: 23/09/2016

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 is directed against an order passed by Pr.CIT- 29 Mumbai dated 26/02/2015 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 11/03/2013.

In this case, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that in the assessment finalized by the Assessing Officer, consequent to the impugned order of the Commissioner, the plea of the assessee has been accepted. For this reason, it is submitted that the said appeal proceedings have become infructuous and is withdrawn.

The Ld. Departmental Representative has not contested the stand of the assessee .

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2016

ATHARVA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-29, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments