Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order dated 12.06.2025 by the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The assessee contended that a separate appellate order for the same appeal had already been adjudicated on 28.02.2019, rendering the current order infructuous.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the issue was one of factual verification regarding whether the appeal had been previously adjudicated. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for verification.
Key Issues
Whether a subsequent appellate order is legally valid when the appeal against the assessment order was already adjudicated by a prior order.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2013-14, raising following ground:
1. On the facts and circumstances the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing A separate appellate order dated 12.06.2025, despite the fact the said appeal had already been adjudicated and disposed of by the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai vide its order dated 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from 28.02.2019. The impugned order passed thereafter suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed. legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed.
At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee At the outset, we note that the notice issued to the assessee was returned by the postal authorities with the remark “addressee was returned by the postal authorities with the rem was returned by the postal authorities with the rem left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any left”. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the representation on behalf of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, aft was therefore heard ex parte qua the assessee, aft learned Departmental Representative. learned Departmental Representative.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal principal contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been is that the appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed vide order dated 10.06.2015, and that the subsequent order passed by the learned CIT(A) by the learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai on 28.02.2019 amounts to a 21, Mumbai on 28.02.2019 amounts to a second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the second disposal of the same appeal, thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. order legally unsustainable.
4. We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the We find that the issue raised goes to the very root of the matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, matter and is essentially one of factual verification, namely, whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order had already been disposed of by order had already been disposed of by the first appellate authority the first appellate authority prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can prior to the passing of the impugned order. Such verification can only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon only be appropriately undertaken by the learned CIT(A) upon examination of the appellate records. examination of the appellate records.
5. In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the imp In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the imp In the interest of justice, we therefore set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for the limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found the assessment order had already been adjudicated. If it is found that the appeal stood disposed of earlier, the that the appeal stood disposed of earlier, the learned CIT(A) shall learned CIT(A) shall treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass treat the subsequent appellate proceedings as infructuous and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due appropriate orders in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. atistical purposes.