Parveen Kumar Garg v ITO Panchkula: ITAT Chandigarh on Section 154 Rectification Rendering Appeal Infructuous

This case documents how a successful rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act can render a pending appeal before the ITAT entirely academic. When the Assessing Officer gave effect to a rectification that deleted the disputed addition and brought the tax demand down to NIL, the assessee's appeal — filed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding that addition — lost its subject matter, and the Tribunal permitted its withdrawal. For in-house teams and litigators tracking the interplay between post-appeal rectification and live Tribunal proceedings, this order offers a compact procedural illustration.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Sh. Parveen Kumar Garg, Panchkula vs ITO, Ward -3, Panchkula

• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh

• Date: 15 May 2023

• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)

• Sections engaged: 154

• Outcome: Appeal dismissed as withdrawn

  (Note: source classification stored as Taxpayer succeeded; the order's dispositive line states "the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn" — the latter governs. The practical outcome was favourable to the assessee because the underlying addition of Rs. 7,14,422 was deleted and demand reduced to NIL through the Section 154 rectification, rendering the appeal infructuous.)

---

Facts of the case

Sh. Parveen Kumar Garg, resident of House No. 14B, Sector 2, Panchkula, Haryana (PAN: ADIPG7520J) filed ITA No. 44/CHD/2023 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was directed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27 December 2022, which had apparently sustained an addition of Rs. 7,14,422 made by the Assessing Officer.

Two days after the CIT(A) passed its order — on 29 December 2022 — the assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act before the Assessing Officer. The appeal before the ITAT was filed on 06 February 2023 and was listed for hearing on 15 May 2023 before the SMC Bench of ITAT Chandigarh.

By the time of the hearing, the Assessing Officer had given effect to the Section 154 rectification: the addition of Rs. 7,14,422 stood deleted and the resulting tax demand came down to NIL. The assessee's counsel accordingly filed an application dated 11 May 2023 bringing these developments to the Tribunal's notice and requesting permission to withdraw the appeal.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the ITAT appeal against the CIT(A)'s order could be permitted to be withdrawn in view of the subsequent Section 154 rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer that had deleted the disputed addition.
• Whether the rectification under Section 154 — filed two days after the CIT(A) order and resulting in a NIL demand — extinguished the grievance underlying the pending Tribunal appeal.

---

What the court held

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The operative disposition, as recorded in the order pronounced on 15 May 2023, reads: "In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn."

The assessee's counsel, Sh. Ramesh Trehen (CA), placed before the Bench an application dated 11 May 2023 reproducing the factual sequence: the CIT(A) order of 27 December 2022, the Section 154 rectification request filed on 29 December 2022, the consequent deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,14,422, and the reduction of tax demand to NIL. On this basis, counsel sought the Tribunal's permission to withdraw the present appeal. The Departmental Representative, Sh. Akashdeep (JCIT DR), raised no objection. The Bench, comprising Vice President Shri A.D. Jain and Accountant Member Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, accordingly granted permission for withdrawal.

The order reflects a straightforward procedural closure: once the Section 154 rectification achieved the relief that the appeal had been filed to secure — deletion of the addition and a NIL demand — there was no surviving dispute for the Tribunal to adjudicate.

---

Strategy observations

1. Parallel rectification alongside appellate proceedings: The assessee filed the Section 154 rectification application on 29 December 2022, just two days after the CIT(A) order, and separately filed the ITAT appeal on 06 February 2023. The rectification route succeeded before the Tribunal hearing date, making both remedies run concurrently rather than sequentially.

2. Formal application to the Tribunal documenting the rectification outcome: Rather than simply appearing and seeking adjournment or oral mention, the assessee's counsel filed a written application dated 11 May 2023 that reproduced the factual narrative and attached the rectification order at pages 76–79 of the paper book. This documentary approach allowed the Bench to act on a clear record.

3. No Revenue objection: The Departmental Representative recorded no objection to the withdrawal, which enabled the Bench to dispose of the matter on the date of hearing itself — the same day as both hearing and pronouncement (15 May 2023).

4. Outcome classification context: The structured corpus classifies this as a taxpayer success (confidence: 0.80), reflecting the substantive outcome — the addition was deleted and demand became NIL. The formal dispositive order is a withdrawal, not an "allowed" order. Researchers working with automated outcome classifiers should note this distinction when citing the case in litigation databases.

---

Why this case matters

This order illustrates a recurring procedural scenario in Indian income-tax litigation: a taxpayer pursues parallel remedies — appellate challenge before the ITAT and a rectification application before the Assessing Officer — and the rectification succeeds first, mooting the tribunal appeal. The case is a useful data point for understanding that Section 154 rectifications filed in the window between a first-appellate order and a tribunal appeal can, if the AO accepts them, resolve the underlying dispute without a merits adjudication at the Tribunal stage.

For practitioners cataloguing ITAT disposals, the order also highlights an important classification nuance: a disposal "dismissed as withdrawn" following a substantive win at the rectification stage differs materially from a dismissal for non-prosecution or on merits against the assessee. The practical result here — deletion of Rs. 7,14,422 and a NIL demand — was entirely in the assessee's favour, even though the formal ITAT order does not record an "allowed" disposition.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145916364/