CHHITUBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, SURAT
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
Assessee by : Shri Ashwin K.Parekh, - CA Respondent by : Shri J.K.Chandanani, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 09/05/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement: 09/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R
PER Dr. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31.03.2021, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the time of hearing, before us, the learned counsel, Shri Ashwin K Parekh, on behalf of the assessee, stated that he has instructed by the assessee to withdraw this appeal, hence, he did not wish to press this appeal, to which, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection. Consequently, we treat this appeal as withdrawn.
Assessment Year: 2016-17 Chhitubhai N Patel 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 09/05/2022 at the close of hearing, as per Rule 34 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rule 1963.
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 →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026