FERRITE ALLOYS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed two separate appeals against two different orders, not against the same order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal was incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order and a subsequent rectification order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, mistakenly believing two appeals were filed for the same assessment year and order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal on the mistaken premise of multiple appeals against the same order, when separate appeals were filed against distinct orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-34, New Delhi dated 28.07.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2008-09.
The only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that there are two appeals pending of the appellant of the same year and ignored the fact that both the appeals were on separate issues and both the appeals needs to be decided separately. 3. It would be pertinent to refer to the findings of the CIT(A) which read as under :-
Facts on record show that the assessee preferred appeal against the assessment order framed u/s. 143 (3) / 147 of the Act which was subsequently rectified u/s.154 of the Act against which order the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It is not a case where two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the same order but two different appeals have been filed by the assessee preferred against two different orders.
Therefore, in the interest of justice we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026