What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was determined that the current appeal was a duplicate filing and therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. The assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, explaining it was a duplicate of a previously filed appeal due to defects in the original filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal, being a duplicate filing, should be dismissed as withdrawn.

Jaanvi Pratik Kishnani, Kalyan vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 17/07/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: F BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4259/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2023-24) Jaanvi Pratik Kishnani ITO Ward 2(2) Shop No. 105, Ground floor, Radha Khadakpada, Kalyan West, Complex NR. Dassera Maidan, Maharashtra – 421301, Kalyan- Vs. Ulhasnagar, Kalyan -421003, Dombivali Maharashtra अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: DYXPK2499K

अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Bharesh Doshi (Virtually) ��थ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Nishant Samaiya, (CIT DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 15/07/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 17/07/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC-Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.01.2026 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24.

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee sought leave to withdraw this appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee filed appeal originally which was numbered as ITA No. 2994/Mum/2026. However, as there were defects in Form No. 36,

ITA 4259/MUM/2026 Jaanvi Pratik Kishnani

the assessee was required to file revised Form No. 36. The assessee instead of filing revised Form No. 36 filed altogether a new appeal which is nothing but a duplicate appeal which is numbered as ITA No. 259/Mum/2026.

Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee and upon perusal of the record, we find merit in the request so made. Since the present appeal is nothing but a duplicate appeal came to be filed as explained above, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17 /07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17 /07/2026 Kunal

ITA 4259/MUM/2026 Jaanvi Pratik Kishnani

Copy to: Jaanvi Pratik Kishnani Shop No. 105, Ground floor, Radha Complex NR. Dassera Maidan, 1 Ulhasnagar, Kalyan -421003, Maharashtra

ITO Ward 2(2) Khadakpada, Kalyan West, Maharashtra – 421301, Kalyan-Dombivali 2

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

JAANVI PRATIK KISHNANI,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments