Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 ITAT CK 5484

Ram Avtar vs ITO-Ward 3(1)-Gurgaon

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 30 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member · Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA 1485/DEL/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 259 words

PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069486718(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 12.04.2022 u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru for AY: 2018-19.

2.

The ld. Counsel of the assesse at the very outset submitted that the assesse wish to withdraw its appeal for the following reasons:

“1.

Against the CIT (A) order, dated 07/10/2024 confirming disallowance of Rs.6,02,599/- appeal was filed by me with condonation of delay application.

2.

Actually there was delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI of Rs.6,02,599/-, however by mistake the same was reported wrongly as delay in deposit of service tax by the Auditor in the Tax Audit Report.

3.

I am not in a position to arrange any corrigendum letter from the Auditor to substantiate the fact that there was actually delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI, however wrongly reported in the Tax Audit report as delay in deposit of service tax.

4.

It is also submitted that the amount of disallowance of Rs.6,02,599/- is not substantial.

5.

HUMBLE PRAYER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO TREAT THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN:”

3.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2026