MAULI VIDHYAPEETH KAIJ,BEED vs. ITO EXEMPTION CIRCLE- ABAD, AURANGABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the present appeal was a duplicate filing, with a prior appeal already filed for the same assessment year and pending for hearing. The assessee's counsel explicitly stated that the filing was inadvertent and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative did not object to this request. Therefore, in light of the assessee's voluntary request for withdrawal due to duplication and the absence of any objection from the revenue, the Tribunal acceded to the request. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Mauli Vidhyapeeth Kaij, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against an order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Chennai. This order stemmed from an intimation dated 22.09.2023 passed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2022-23. During the hearing on 07.10.2026, the assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the current appeal was a duplicate filing. The assessee had previously e-filed an appeal on 23.12.2025, numbered ITA No.979/PUN/2026, which was scheduled for hearing on 07.12.2026. The assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal due to this inadvertent duplication. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn due to inadvertent duplication? (Question of procedure) The assessee argued that the present appeal was a duplicate filing, as a similar appeal (ITA No.979/PUN/2026) had already been filed for the same assessment year and was scheduled for hearing. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the current appeal. The assessee relied on the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and the inadvertent nature of the filing. The revenue did not raise any objections to the assessee's request for withdrawal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMber :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 23.12.2025 of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Chennai emanating out of intimation dated 22.09.2023 passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application seeking withdrawal of appeal on the ground that the present appeal is ‘duplicate’ as it has already e-filed an appeal on 23.12.2025 which is numbered as ITA No.979/PUN/2026 and the hearing is scheduled on 07.12.2026. Since filing of the present appeal is inadver
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
