What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the current appeal was a duplicate of an already adjudicated appeal. Therefore, no independent adjudication was required for this appeal.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to delay. The assessee subsequently filed two appeals before the ITAT against the same CIT(A) order, resulting in two separate appeal numbers. One of these appeals was already dismissed by the Tribunal for not showing sufficient cause for delay.

What were the issues?

Whether a duplicate appeal filed against the same order, which has already been adjudicated, can be independently heard.

Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhota (Virtual appearance)

For Respondent: Shri Sridhar G Menon, SR

Hearing: 21/08/2026Pronounced: 21/08/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 30.10.2025, whereby the assessee’s appeal before the first appellate authority was dismissed on the ground of delay.

2 ITA No. 568/Mum/2026 Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that against the very same order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed the appeal before the Tribunal both online as well as physically, as a result of which two separate appeal numbers came to be registered, namely, ITA No. 8949/Mum/2025 and ITA No. 568/Mum/2026. Both the appeals, therefore, emanate from the same order of the learned CIT(A) and represent the same appellate proceedings.

From the record, it is seen that ITA No. 8949/Mum/2025 has already been disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2026, whereby the assessee’s appeal was dismissed holding that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had not been made out and, consequently, the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on limitation was sustained. Against the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed MA No. 163/Mum/2026, which is pending for adjudication.

In these circumstances, once the appeal arising from the same impugned order had already been registered as ITA No. 8949/Mum/2025 and stood disposed of by the Tribunal, ITA No. 568/Mum/2026, which came to be separately registered merely on account of physical filing of the same appeal, is only a duplicate appeal. Consequently, no independent adjudication in the present appeal survives.

3 ITA No. 568/Mum/2026 Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh

Accordingly, ITA No. 568/Mum/2026 is dismissed as infructuous, being a duplicate appeal. Needless to say, this dismissal shall have no bearing on the pending MA No. 163/Mum/2026, which shall be considered independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced on 21st August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH KUMAR LODHA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 21/08/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

AKANSHA YOGESH DESHMUKH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATION TAXATION ) 2(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments