HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 88/CTK/2021Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 May 2022AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the assessee's claim, which was the subject of the section 263 proceedings. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order under section 263 of the Act. The appeal was time-barred by 93 days. The assessee subsequently filed an application to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be withdrawn due to the subsequent favorable order by the AO, and if the time-barred appeal should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, AR
For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Hearing: 24/5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/ S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Plot No Ltd., Plot No-A/103, Saheed Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. No.AAACH 9591 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.D.Ojha, AR , AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 24/5/ 20 / 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24 / /5/2022 O R D E R Per A.K.Khodpia, AM A.K.Khodpia, AM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 under section 263 of the Act 1 under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. .

2.

The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed The appeal is time barred by 93 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition to condone the delay. However, when the case was condonation petition to condone the delay. However, when the case was condonation petition to condone the delay. However, when the case was taken up for hearing, it is noticed that the assessee taken up for hearing, it is noticed that the assessee has filed an application has filed an application for withdrawing the appeal on the ground that the AO while passing the for withdrawing the appeal on the ground that the AO while passing the for withdrawing the appeal on the ground that the AO while passing the order u/s.143(3)/263 dated 31.3.2022 has allowed the claim of the order u/s.143(3)/263 dated 31.3.2022 has allowed the claim of the order u/s.143(3)/263 dated 31.3.2022 has allowed the claim of the P a g e 1 | 2 assessee, which was the subject matter of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. The ld CIT DR also did not have any objection to the request of the assessee. In view of above, there is no necessity to consider the condonation petition filed by the assessee. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine as withdrawn.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 24 /5/2022.

Sd/- sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) (Arun Khodpia) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24 /05/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant : Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt Ltd., Plot No-A/103, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar.

3. The CIT(A)-, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 2 | 2

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →