1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal sets aside CIT(A) order, emphasizes appeal withdrawal rules, fairness in legal proceedings</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing reconsideration of the appeal on its merits. It emphasized the ... Counsel Acting Without Instructions Issues:Appeal against order of CIT(A) based on withdrawal request without proper authorization, denial of opportunity to present case, imposition of penalty, and fairness of approach according to law.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the order of the CIT(A) citing various grounds, including the lack of proper authorization for withdrawal of the appeal, denial of opportunity to present their case, and concerns over the imposition of a penalty. The authorized representative highlighted that the withdrawal request was made by a new entrant advocate due to the illness of the authorized representative, and the CIT(A) should have considered the adjournment request instead of influencing the withdrawal. The appellant later filed a petition for recalling the withdrawal order, which was rejected without communication.2. The Departmental Representative argued that the withdrawal was duly authorized, supported by an authority letter and the acknowledgment of the advocate on the withdrawal order. Reference was made to the principle of promissory estoppel and previous judgments to support the withdrawal decision. The authorized representative countered, stating that the cited cases were not applicable to the present situation.3. The Tribunal considered the submissions, affidavit of the advocate, and other materials on record. It noted discrepancies in the order sheet and the certified copy regarding the withdrawal of the appeal. While acknowledging the authorized representation, the Tribunal agreed that there was no valid reason for the withdrawal and that the appellant should not suffer due to the counsel's actions beyond their instructions.4. After evaluating the circumstances and distinguishing them from previous cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, directing the CIT(A) to restore and reconsider the appeal on its merits. The decision was clarified not to impact the merits of the appeal to be decided by the CIT(A) in the future.Overall, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of proper authorization for withdrawal of appeals, ensuring the opportunity to present a case, and maintaining fairness in the legal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
