ROTHE ERDE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 947/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal bearing IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026 was a duplicate appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission and the procedural history presented. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had originally filed appeal number 1050/PUN/2024, which was restored after being dismissed. The subsequent filing of appeal IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026 was a consequence of an inadvertent error during the process of curing defects in the restored appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the current appeal as a duplicate and dismissed it. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rothe Erde India Private Limited, filed an appeal (ITA No. 1050/PUN/2024) against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Nashik-1, for Assessment Year 2016-17. This appeal was dismissed on August 23, 2024, due to uncured defects. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application, which led to the recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the appeal, with liberty to cure defects. Subsequently, the assessee filed a fresh set of appeal papers on February 27, 2026, to cure the defects. However, this filing was inadvertently registered as a new, independent appeal, IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026, instead of being treated as part of the restored appeal. The current appeal, IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026, was scheduled for hearing on May 19, 2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal bearing IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026 is a valid, independent appeal or a procedural duplication arising from the curing of defects in a previously restored appeal (ITA No. 1050/PUN/2024) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026 is not a fresh appeal but a result of an inadvertent error where the corrected appeal papers for the restored appeal (ITA No. 1050/PUN/2024) were registered as a separate appeal. They relied on the procedural history, including the filing of the original appeal, its dismissal, the Miscellaneous Application, the recall order, and the subsequent filing of corrected papers. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi Jhaveri
For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 22nd March 2024.

2.

The assessee filed a letter dated 13th May 2026 which is reproduced as

The captioned appeal is scheduled for hearing before the Hon'ble 'C' Bench of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune on 19 May 2026.

In this connection, we most humbly submit that: • The Appellant had originally filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 1050/PUN/2024 before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 15 May 2024, challenging the order dated 22 March 2024 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Nashik-1 ("Ld. PCIT") for

IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026

Assessment Year 2016-17. A copy of the acknowledged Form No. 36 is enclosed herewith as Annexure 1. • The aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 23 August 2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on the ground that certain defects remained uncured. A copy of the said order is enclosed as Annexure 2. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application, inter alia contending that the alleged defects in the appeal had never been communicated to the Appellant. Upon consideration of the said application, this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to recall the order of dismissal and restore the appeal for fresh adjudication, while granting liberty to the Appellant to cure the defects. The order passed on the Miscellaneous Application is enclosed herewith as Annexure 3. • Pursuant to and in compliance with the aforesaid directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Appellant duly filed a fresh set of appeal papers in Form No. 36 on 27 February 2026, after curing the defects pointed out. A copy of the said Form No. 36 is enclosed as Annexure 4. The appeal, as restored, is presently fixed for hearing on 28 May 2026, as reflected on the ITAT portal. A relevant screenshot evidencing the same is enclosed as Annexure 5. • However, it appears that due to an inadvertent error, the fresh appeal memo filed on 27 February 2026, which was intended solely for the purpose of curing defects in the restored appeal, has instead been registered as an independent and separate appeal and allotted a new appeal number, namely IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026, instead of being treated as part of and in continuation of the originally restored appeal bearing ITA No. 1050/PUN/2024. Consequently, the present appeal has arisen purely on account of this unintended and technical duplication, despite there being only one substantive challenge to the order passed under section 263 of the Act. • The Appellant has also received a notice of hearing in respect of the captioned appeal, being IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026, fixing the matter for hearing on 19 May 2026. A copy of the said hearing notice is enclosed herewith as Annexure 6.

IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026

• In the above circumstances, it is respectfully requested that this clarification may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Bench and that the records of the Registry be rectified accordingly. In this regard, the Appellant humbly submits that the aforementioned appeal bearing IT(TP)A No. 947/PUN/2026 has been generated inadvertently and does not represent an independent or fresh appeal but has arisen solely due to a procedural error while curing defects in the originally restored appeal.

3.

Thus, it is observed that assessee has originally filed appeal number 1050/PUN/2024, which is now scheduled for hearing 28th May 2026.

4.

In these facts appeal No. 947/PUN/2026 is treated as duplicate and accordingly dismissed. The Assistant Registrar is directed to place Form No. 36 and other documents which were filed with IT(TP)A 947/PUN/2026 in the file of assessee’s appeal No. 1050/PUN/2024.

5.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →