MESERS TIRUMALA BALAJI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1), BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/RPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal before the ITAT. This was because the assessee had accepted the disputed addition before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for the assessment year in question.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is permitted to withdraw its appeal before the ITAT. The appeal was rendered infructuous due to prior settlement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, AR
For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Hearing: 25.05.2022Pronounced: 25.05.2022

आदेश / ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeal), Bilaspur (C.G.), dated 02.04.2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 20.02.2015 for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

At the very outset of hearing of appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee that the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal. Elaborating on the reasons for seeking of withdrawal of appeal, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee pursuant to search conducted on its group, had filed an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) wherein, in the aforesaid application for the year under consideration the disputed addition was accepted by it. Backed by his aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that captioned appeal pending for adjudication before the Tribunal had been rendered as infructuous. Accordingly, the assessee had requested for withdrawal of the captioned appeal.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee.

3 M/s. Tirumala Balaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1)

4.

After considering the aforesaid facts, we herein permit to withdraw the appeal as requested by the assessee/ appellant.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 25th May, 2022 SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent.

3. The CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur (C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT, Bilaspur (C.G) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // �नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

4 M/s. Tirumala Balaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1)

Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.05.2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 25.05.2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →