N.A. SPORTZ INTERACTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(923)(1), CPC, MUMBAI

ITA 6166/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 March 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the original appeal with a similar number had already been disposed of. Therefore, the present appeal, being a duplicate, was considered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order of the CIT(A). However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was brought to the Tribunal's notice that the current appeal was a duplicate.

What were the issues?

Whether a duplicate appeal, where the original has already been adjudicated, is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28-09-2024 passed by the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.) 2022-23. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it was brought to our notice that this is a duplicate appeal and the original appeal was numbered as and the same has already been disposed of by the Tribunal on 30-01-2025. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being duplicate, is dismissed as infructuous.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →