SURAJ SALIAN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 15th February, 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai for A.Y. 2013-14, raising following grounds:

“ 01. This appeal is filed by Suraj Salian Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai (learned CIT - A) dated 15/2/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 2/2/2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Mumbai (learned AO) was partly allowed. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal. 02. This appeal is delayed by 1423 days as per the Defect Memo of the Registry, dated 20/3/2023. This matter was heard earlier by another Bench on 3/8/2023 and later on released, as the appeal was delayed and no condonation application was found on record. The Bench directed the Registry to list this appeal for hearing after giving notice to both the parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, notice by Registered A/D was issued to the assessee on 22/8/2023 fixing the appeal for hearing on 26/9/2023. 03. On the date of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for condonation of delay was filed. Even on earlier occasions also, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. The Memorandum of Appeal filed by the assessee also clearly states that the impugned order appealed against was served on the assessee on 15/2/2019, whereas this appeal was filed on 9/3/2023. The defect memo was also communicated to the assessee by the Registry, as per record, on 20/3/2023. In view of the above facts, this appeal cannot be admitted, in absence of any condonation petition, as it is delayed by 1423 days. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as un-admitted. 04. However, we give liberty to the assessee that in case if it has a sufficient cause for filing the appeal late, and proper application for condonation of delay is made within time, the necessary application for recall of this order may be made, which may be considered in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 05. 3. It is thus evident, and indeed not disputed, that the present appeal is directed against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.02.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14, which has already been the subject-matter of adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in its order dated 30.10.2023. The present appeal is, in substance and in form, a duplicate of the appeal so decided. An assessee cannot maintain two parallel appeals against one and the same appellate order for the same assessment year. Once the Tribunal has adjudicated an appeal arising from a given order, that order stands exhausted as a source of further appellate jurisdiction before this forum, and a second appeal on the same cause of action does not lie. It is equally relevant that the Coordinate Bench, while declining to admit the earlier appeal for want of an application for condonation of the delay of 1,423 days, expressly reserved liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal by way of an application for recall of that order, supported by a proper application for condonation of delay setting out sufficient cause. That liberty defines the remedy available to the assessee. The appropriate course, therefore, is for the assessee to invoke the liberty so granted by moving a miscellaneous application for recall of the order dated 30.10.2023, accompanied by a duly supported application for condonation of delay and not to institute a fresh appeal against the same impugned order.

3.1 The filing of the present appeal does not, and cannot, substitute for the remedy expressly reserved by the Coordinate Bench. In these circumstances, the present appeal has become infructuous and is not maintainable.

3.2 We, therefore, hold that the present appeal does not survive for adjudication and is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of any of the grounds raised by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 18/09/2026. K.Kr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai