BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 920/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER, SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the appellant's request to withdraw the duplicate appeal and confirmed that the original appeal had already been adjudicated. As the Ld. DR did not object, the tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Limited filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order, which arose from a CPC order under Section 143(1) for Assessment Year 2023-24, where an addition was made for delayed payment of employees' provident fund contribution. The appellant subsequently informed the tribunal that this appeal was a duplicate, as an original appeal (ITA 814/MUM/2025) on the same grounds had already been disposed of.

What were the issues?

Whether a duplicate appeal can be withdrawn and dismissed when the original appeal covering the same grounds has already been disposed of by the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Hearing: 21/07/2025Pronounced: 23/07/2025

O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

Instant appeal of the assesse was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax / Addl / JCIT(A)-2, Delhi, [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2023-24, date of order 09/12/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru passed under section 143(1) of the Act, 1961, date of order 09/01/2024.

2 ITA 920/Mum /2025 Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Limited 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment application was filed. Considering the merit of the case, we proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte qua for assessee, after hearing the Ld.DR.

3.

We have heard the Ld.DR and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The addition was made by disallowing the delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund. It is found that the assessee has filed the letter dated 10/07/2025 and requested for withdrawal of appeal and the relevant part of the said letter is reproduced as below:- “In this connection, the appellant wishes to state that an appeal was erroneously e-filed twice on ITAT portal and we would like to withdraw the duplicate Appeal no. ITA 920/MUM/2025 which is fixed for hearing on 21/07/2025 filed against CIT(A) order for AY 2023-24. The Hon'ble Bench have already disposed appellants original appeal (ITA 814/MUM/2025) filed against CIT(A) order for AY 2023-24 with same grounds on 23/04/2025. (copy of Order attached).”

4.

The Ld. DR has not raised any objection.

5.

Accordingly, permission for withdrawal of the appeal, having been filed in duplication, is granted. The appeal is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →