M/S. PANCHNATH AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential order passed by the AO accepted the returned income, resolving the assessee's grievance.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Pr.CIT under section 263. The assessee later filed a letter stating they wished to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's appeal against the Pr.CIT's order under section 263 should be withdrawn due to a subsequent favorable order from the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Ld.Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “ld.Pr.CIT” dated 17.02.2021 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.
At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the assessee has filed a letter dated 20.6.2023 stating that the assessee wanted to withdraw its appeal on account of the fact that consequential order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 26-3-2022 has been passed by the AO, wherein returned income has been accepted, and therefore, there remains no grievance in the present appeal against the 263-order, which was challenged and pending before the Tribunal for 2 adjudication appeal. The letter of the assessed dated 20.6.2023 is placed on record.
In the light of the above letter of the assessee stating that since the assessee’s grievance has been resolved by the Department, we allow request of the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the Court on 23rd June, 2023 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026