1 CGHC010327382025 2026:CGHC:38444-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 177 of 2025 1 - Syed Hifajat Ali, S/o Shri Syed Akbar Ali, Aged About 66 Years R/o. 144/145 Anand Bazar Road, Shree Nagar Extension, Tahsil And Distt. Indore- 452001 (M.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title as taken from the CIS) For Appellant : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board 31/08/2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J : 1. During the course of argument learned counsel for the appellant would submits that first question of law which was RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.09.05 11:24:16 +0530 2 formulated by this Court on 07.08.2025 is with regard to dismissal of application filed under proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (hereinafter reffered as “Rules, 1963”). However, subsequently, when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2025, another question of law was formulated “as to whether ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal on merits by recording of finding which is perverse to the record ?” 2. During course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant presses upon the order passed by the ITAT on application under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 and submits that if this Court answers the first question of law then order Annexure A/1 itself will go and the ITAT is to hear the appeal on merits. When learned counsel for the appellant is confronted with the pleadings made in the appeal and the prayer clause, he fairly accepted that the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in the application under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 is not challenged as it is not appealable. He submits that infact writ petition would lie. 3. After arguing for sometime he submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order under proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, 1963 by filing appropriate proceedings. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ravi Mandavi