Sitaram Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 40,Kolkata & Ors

01.04.2024 1 PG/KS Ct. No.1 M.A.T. 24 of 2024 Sitaram Sharma Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 40,Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra MazumderMr. Kausheyo RoyMr. Kausheyo Roy ………..for the appellant 1. On 19[th] March, 2024, learned advocate appearing forthe appellant submitted a letter seeking permission towithdraw the appeal on the instruction from his client.The said letter was placed on record and the appealstands dismissed as withdrawn. the appellant submitted a letter seeking permission towithdraw the appeal on the instruction from his client.The said letter was placed on record and the appealstands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. It appears that on the said date, the learned advocateappearing for the appellant was not in possession ofany written communication from the appellant directinghim to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, learnedadvocate had sent an e-mail through whom theappellant had entrusted the brief to the learned counselappearing in this appeal to give written instruction towithdraw the appeal.appearing for the appellant was not in possession ofany written communication from the appellant directinghim to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, learnedadvocate had sent an e-mail through whom theappellant had entrusted the brief to the learned counselappearing in this appeal to give written instruction towithdraw the appeal. 3. The said advocate has responded by stating that theclient is no longer working with him and he maycontact the new advocate on record for furtherclarification. client is no longer working with him and he maycontact the new advocate on record for furtherclarification. 4. Thus, as on date, the learned advocate appearing forthe appellant does not have any written instruction towithdraw this appeal. However, the learned advocatefor the appellant submitted that since the stayapplication along with the annexures and theapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act hasnot been filed in this appeal, he seeks permission towithdraw the appeal to file a fresh appeal against thevery same impugned order along with the stayapplication and annexures as well as application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act.the appellant does not have any written instruction towithdraw this appeal. However, the learned advocatefor the appellant submitted that since the stayapplication along with the annexures and theapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act hasnot been filed in this appeal, he seeks permission towithdraw the appeal to file a fresh appeal against thevery same impugned order along with the stayapplication and annexures as well as application underSection 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawnwith liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appealagainst the very same impugned order along with thestay application and an application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act. with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appealagainst the very same impugned order along with thestay application and an application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act. 6. No costs. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if appliedfor, be furnished to the parties expeditiously uponcompliance of all legal formalities.for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously uponcompliance of all legal formalities. (T.S SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)