RAMCHANDRA MARUTI MOHITE,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3), Section 153A(b), Section 250

ITSSA 54/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 January 2023AY 2006-075 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the current appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-2007 was superfluous and redundant. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had already adjudicated upon the assessee's appeal against the Assessing Officer's order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act dated 28.03.2014 for AY 2006-07, vide an order dated 18.03.2016. Despite being provided an opportunity to respond and confirm the nature of the current appeal, the assessee failed to do so. The Tribunal found that the difference in the sections (143(3) versus 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b)) did not alter the fact that the appeal was against the same Assessing Officer's order and had already been decided. Therefore, the current appeal was treated as superfluous and dismissed for statistical purposes. The assessee was granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2006-2007 against an order passed by the CIT(A), Pune-11. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. The CIT(A)'s order noted that notices for hearing were sent to the assessee, but no response was received. Upon examining records, the CIT(A) found that an appeal for the same assessment year against an order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) had already been disposed of on 18.03.2016. The assessee was asked to confirm if the current appeal and the previous one were against the same Assessing Officer's order. No response was received. The CIT(A) concluded that the current appeal was superfluous as the matter had already been adjudicated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the current appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-2007 against an order under Section 143(3) of the Act is superfluous and redundant, given that a previous appeal for the same assessment year against an order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act was already disposed of by the CIT(A) on 18.03.2016. Assessee's contentions: No arguments were presented by the assessee as they remained ex-parte. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its representative, relied on the findings of the CIT(A) that the current appeal was superfluous because a prior appeal for the same assessment year had already been decided. The revenue implicitly argued that the current appeal should be dismissed on this ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A(b),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 10.01.2023Pronounced: 10.01.2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A.No.54/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2006-2007 Asst. Commissioner of Shri Ramchandra Maruti Income Tax, Central Mohite, 17-E, Shiv Parvati, Circle, 624/A, E-Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur. vs. 1st Floor, Shriram Heights, PIN – 416 003 Shahupuri, Kolhapur. PAN ABGPM8695J Maharashtra. PIN 416 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B. Koteswara Rao Date of Hearing : 10.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

This assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2006- 2007, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune’s dated 05.04.2022, passed in case DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/ S/250/2022-23/1042533782(1), involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion rejecting the assessee’s appeal reads as follows :

2 IT(SS)A.No.54/PUN./2022 Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur. “2. Notices for hearing u/s 250 of the Act dated 03/11/2021 and 20/11/2021 were sent to the appellant but the appellant has not responded to such Notices. As no responses were received from the appellant assessee, the records of this Office were examined wherein an appeal of the same year under consideration was found to have been disposed off by this Office vide Order u/s 250 of the Act dated 18/03/2016. In light of the above finding, a confirmation was sought from the appellant vide Notice dated 11/03/2022 with the following query: "Please refer to this Office's Notices u/s 250 of the IT Act dated 03/11/2021 and 20/1 1/2021 wherein you were requested to furnish submissions, if any, in support of your appeal. You have, however, not responded to the Notices. Further, a perusal of the old records of this Office indicates that your appeal against the Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur's Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the IT Act dated 29/04/2014 for AY 2006- 07 has already been disposed of vide Order u/s 250 of the Act dated 18/03/2016. You are, therefore, requested to confirm if the appeal mentioned above and the current appeal are against the same Order of the AO. If not, you are requested to

3 IT(SS)A.No.54/PUN./2022 Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur. furnish your submissions in support of your appeal. However, if no response is received by the date mentioned in this Notice, considering the similarities in the two appeals, it will be presumed that both the appeals are against the same order of the AO and the current appeal will accordingly be dismissed as superfluous."

However, the appellant has not found it fit to respond to the above Notice. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant assessee for the year under consideration is decided on the basis of the material on record.

The referred Order of the CIT (A)-11, Pune dated 18/03/2016 is in respect of an appeal filed on 29/04/2014 against the Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur's Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act dated 28/03/2014 wherein a demand of Rs.17,46,694/- was raised. Now, considering the facts of the present appeal and that of the referred Order dated 18/03/2016, it can be seen that the difference in the two appeals is only in the section of the impugned appeal i.e., 143(3) and 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) respectively. As such, there can be no doubt that the two appeal are one and the same and that the present appeal is erroneous in so much as it is

4 IT(SS)A.No.54/PUN./2022 Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur. superfluous. The Order u/s 250 of the Act dated 18/03/2016 is kept on record.

Considering the fact that the CIT (A)-11, Pune, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, has already adjudicated upon the appeal of the assessee against the AO's Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(b) of the Act dated 28/03/2014 for AY 2006-07, it is evidently clear that the current appeal against Order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2014 which is shown as 'pending' in the ITBA Appeal Module Worklist is erroneous and redundant as the appellant's appeal has already been disposed off by the then CIT (A)-11, Pune on 18/03/2016. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee against the Order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2014 for AY 2006-07 is treated as superfluous and therefore, dismissed, for statistical purposes.”

Suffice to say, it has come on record that the CIT(A) had already dismissed the assessee’s appeal and he has passed the impugned order for statistical purposes only. Faced with the situation, we reject the assessee’s instant appeal with liberty granted to him to pursue his all alternative/ appropriate remedies as per law. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

5 IT(SS)A.No.54/PUN./2022 Shri Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.01.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 10th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order//

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →