GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-6 CHENNAI, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5923/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 January 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that simultaneous proceedings are not legally entertainable and the assessee may have inadvertently or under misconception filed the appeal incorrectly. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P, which was disallowed by the AO. The CIT(A) affirmed the addition. Instead of filing an appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee again appealed to the CIT(A) against the same order.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be entertained when the assessee challenges the same order twice before different authorities or the same authority in a sequential manner without following the proper appellate hierarchy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya Jayakumar, Ld. C.A. &, Shri Sundaram Seshan, Ld. C.A
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 13.01.2025Pronounced: 13.01.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 18.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld.

Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld.

Addl./Joint Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16.

2.

Both the appeals are based on the almost identical facts, except variation in amounts and having involved identical issues, therefore for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issues involved in as a lead case and result of the same would be mutatis mutandis applicable to both the appeals under consideration. in the instant case, vide intimation/order dated 20.05.2015, the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,28,408/- {out of which Rs.1,78,418/- on account of interest from co-operative banks and Rs.49,990/- any other income claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act} was disallowed, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the then CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.06.2024 u/s 250 of the Act, affirmed the aforesaid addition.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, instead of filing an 2nd appeal before 4. the Tribunal, again challenged the said order/intimation dated 20.05.2015 by filling first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”, vide impugned order dated 5.

18.09.2024 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee; by taking cognizance of the fact that appeal of the Assessee against the same order/intimation dated 20.05.2015, has already been adjudicated on merit by the Additional/JCIT-4, Delhi vide order dated 27.06.2024 u/s 250 of the Act.

6.

The Assessee being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 is in appeal before this Tribunal and has claimed that previous order passed by the Ld. Commissioner may be sidelined and/or the instant appeal may be considered as filed against the previous order dated 27.06.2024 u/s 250 of the Act

7.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.

8.

This Court having heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties, has observed that the Assessee may be inadvertently or under misconception, instead of challenging the previous order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Additional/JCIT-4, Delhi, before this Tribunal by filling second appeal, preferred to challenge the order/intimation dated 20.05.2015 passed by the CPC again before the Ld. CIT(A). Though the Assessee is not entitled for any relief as it is the mandate of law that simultaneous proceedings are not legally entertainable, thus, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant appeal, however in the interest of substantial justice, with liberty to the Assessee to challenge the original/previous order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Additional/JCIT- 4, Delhi, within 30 days from the date of this order. Thus, the appeal i.e. given above.

9.

In the result, in view of decision in both the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed with liberty as given above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →