DAMMANI INDUSTRIES,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD, TDS 51(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 122/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 November 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal and requested its withdrawal. The revenue representative did not object to this request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal raised grounds related to late filing penalty under Section 234E and penalty under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in affirming the levy of late filing penalty and penalty under Section 220. However, the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234E,Section 220

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 05/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in affirming the levy of late filing penalty u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act for the relevant year consideration. 2. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in affirming an order in the contravention of the trite law settled by judicial precedents.

2 Dammani Industries ITA no.122/Nag./2024 3. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified in affirming the penalty u/s 220 of the Income Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3.

When the case was called for hearing, the learned Authorised Representative, Smt. Veena Agrawal, appearing for the assessee, submitted that she did not wish to press the appeal and accordingly prayed for withdrawal of this appeal. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative has not raised any objection to the submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2024

More judgments on Section 234E

All 4,792 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234E →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →