SUMER CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT (CEN)-3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2435/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 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 Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. No prejudice was caused to either party by the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263. The assessee subsequently filed an application to withdraw the appeal, stating that the original assessment was accepted and the appeal had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal against a revisionary order should be dismissed as withdrawn when the underlying assessment was accepted and the appeal became infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Sanghvi, Shri Sahi S. Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Sahi S. Kumar

Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, Mumbai (‘PCIT’ for short) dated 30.3.2015, subjecting its’ assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12 vide order dated 28.3.2013 to revision.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, that the assessee wishes to withdraw its’ instant appeal, toward which it has filed a separate application (withdrawal letter dated 16.5.2016 placed on 2 Sumer Corporation vs. The Principal CIT (Central) record). The instant appeal impugns the revisionary order u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessment stands made since, she would further continue, accepting the assessee’s claims, so that the instant appeal becomes infructuous. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on being queried by the Bench, did not raise any objection in the matter.

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason not to accept the assessee’s application for the withdrawal of its’ appeal; the same causing no prejudice to either side. The same is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine.

4.

Order pronounced in the open court on May 31, 2016 (Pawan Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 31.05.2016 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"त / CIT - concerned

4.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →