ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. It restricted the addition on account of staff welfare expenses to 5% and remanded the issue of the office property purchase for recomputation by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present her case. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be bona fide. It held that the application should be examined on merits rather than being rejected on a technicality.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not on merits. To secure the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 83,78,318/- as commission income for AY 2018-19 was not sustainable as the income was ultimately received and offered for taxation in AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22, thus avoiding double taxation. The matter was remanded for proper verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had non-participation in certain hearings before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. However, considering the prayer to set aside the order and remand the matter, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-participative in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(E) rejected an application for registration under Section 12A due to the department's own inaction in deciding a previously set-aside matter for over 12 years, the application should be deemed to have been allowed. The assessee cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act within the prescribed timelines. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the current application under present law after hearing the assessee. In another instance, where the CIT(E) rejected an application due to delay in filing Form 10AB without condoning it, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to condone the delay and decide the application on merits, acknowledging the Commissioner's power to condone delays. Regarding the classification of objects as religious, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the educational and moral aspects of its trust objects and the nature of expenditures incurred, especially when the revenue representative had no objection. Finally, where an application was rejected for expenditures not being for the trust's objects, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to furnish details of expenditures and explain how they fulfilled the trust's objects, before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Officer rendered the appeal infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.