What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the present appeal was a duplicate and therefore, its continuation would serve no purpose. No separate adjudication on the grounds raised was necessary.

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for Assessment Year 2020-21. Upon review, it was discovered that this appeal was a duplicate of a substantive appeal already filed and registered for the same assessment year and impugned order.

What were the issues?

Whether a duplicate appeal filed for the same assessment year and impugned order should be adjudicated separately.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE & SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE

61आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6646/MUM/2026 निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-2021) CYRIL AMARCHAND ASSISTANT MANGALDAS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(2) 5TH FLOOR PENINSULA CHAMBERS,GANPATRAO AYKAR Vs. KADAM MARG PENINSULA BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD,MUMBAI CORPORATE PARK, LOWER MUMBAI-400020, PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AAKFC1201H Assessee:

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Rajesh Parekh, AR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 02-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 07-09-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/03/2026 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2020-21.

ITA 6646/MUM/2026 CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS

At the time of hearing, it was noticed that the present appeal is a duplicate appeal arising out of the very same impugned order and pertaining to the same assessment year. The corresponding substantive appeal filed by the assessee against the said impugned order has already been registered separately as ITA No. 6169/Mum/2026 and is being dealt with independently.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us. It is evident from the record that the present appeal is merely a duplicate of the appeal already instituted by the assessee against the very same impugned order. Thus, continuation of the present appeal would serve no purpose and no separate adjudication on the grounds raised herein is called for.

Accordingly, the present appeal, being a duplicate appeal, is dismissed as infructuous. It is clarified that dismissal of the present appeal shall have no bearing on the adjudication of the substantive appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 07-09-2026

ITA 6646/MUM/2026 CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS

Shamik Sr.P.S. Copy to: CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS, 5TH FLOOR PENINSULA CHAMBERS,GANPATRAO KADAM 1 MARG PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013, MAHARASHTRA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(2), 2 AYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD,MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI

CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments