EDAKKATTUKUDY MATHAI JOHNY,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM , ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 560/COCH/2022Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 December 2023AY 2009-2010Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Dr. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member)2 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, acceding to the assessee's request, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee did not wish to prosecute the appeal further.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order partly allowing his appeal concerning the processing of his income. The primary issue was the disallowance of share trading loss against business income.

What were the issues?

The main issue was the admissibility of share trading loss against business income. The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 71(3),Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CA
For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 20.12.2023Pronounced: 20.12.2023

O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an appeal by the Assessee directed against the order dated 12.3.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (‘(CIT(A)’ for short), partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting the processing of his income under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide Intimation dated 16.07.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

2.

At the very outset, it submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessee does not prefer to prosecute his instant appeal and, accordingly, prays for being permitted to withdraw the same. Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR, on being questioned in the matter by us, did not raise any objection thereto.

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The issue agitated by the assessee, as a perusal of the impugned order shows, is the non- (AY : 2009-10) Edakkattukudy Mathai Johny v. ITO allowance of loss for 6,09,015 arising on account of share trading, i.e., against business income, which the ld. CIT(A) has found as inadmissible both in terms of s. 71(3) and s. 73 of the Act. We note that the assessee’s return for the relevant year has also been filed belatedly on 16.10.2009, i.e., as against the due date of 31.7.2009. We have, under the circumstances, no hesitation in, acceding to the assessee’s prayer, permit withdrawal of his instant appeal.

More judgments on Section 73

All 521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 73 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →