Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal (ITA No.681/Kol/2025) against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 1992-93. A 32-day delay in filing was condoned. However, it was brought to the Tribunal's attention that this appeal was a duplicate, as the same issue had already been decided by the Tribunal in another ITA (No.750/Kol/2025) for the same assessment year.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the current appeal was indeed a duplicate, as the matter had already been adjudicated and an order passed in a previous appeal for the same assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the instant appeal as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable if it is a duplicate of a matter already decided by the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
Assessment Year: 1992-93 JCIT(In-CITU), Circle-1(1), Kolkata……………..............................……….……Appellant vs. The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. ....……...…..…..Respondent 1/C, Mandeville Gardens, Ballygunge, Kol- 700019. [PAN: AABCT3043L] Appearances by: Shri S. B. Chakraborty, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : September 02, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 02, 2025 ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 26.09.2017 of the CIT(Appeals)-22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].
At the outset, we observe from the appellate order that the appeal of the revenue is delayed by 32 days for which a condonation petition was filed. After perusing the contents of the condonation petition, we find that the delay was occurred because of administrative approval or sanction obtained from the higher authority. Considering the reasons to be bona fide and genuine, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, the ld. counsel pointed out that this appeal filed by the revenue is a duplicate appeal which was filed against the order of the The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd ld. CIT(A) dated 22.09.2017. The ld. counsel submitted that the appeal against the said appellate order was already decided in filed by the revenue vide order dated 26.08.2025 for assessment year 1992-93. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed.
The ld. DR also fairly conceded the contention made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. He agreed that this is in fact a duplicate appeal filed by the revenue inadvertently and left the issue for decision before the Bench.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we observe that this is a duplicate appeal filed by the revenue against the ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 22.09.2017. We observe that the Tribunal has already decided vide order dated 26.08.2025 in for assessment year 1992-93 which was filed by the revenue against the said order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we dismiss the instant appeal as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Kolkata, the 2nd September, 2025.