YEAKUB MONDAL,SURI, BIRBHUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURI, BIRBHUM, SURI, BIRBHUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 439/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 89 days, finding the reasons plausible. Subsequently, based on the AR's prayer that the appeal was a duplication of an already decided matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19, which was delayed by 89 days. The assessee's AR informed the Tribunal that this appeal was a duplicate of another appeal (ITA No.23/Kol/2025) that had already been decided by the Division Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether an appeal should be permitted to be withdrawn if it is a duplicate of an already decided appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 08/07/2025

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Yeakub Mondal, Vs ITO, Suri, Birbhum C/o Obaidullah Mondal Bishore, PO : Bishore, Rampurhat, Birbhum-731238 PAN No. :CNEPM 3852 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Kumarjit Das, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.09.2024, passed for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2.

Shri Kumarjit Das, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mrinmay Basak, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal is time barred by 89 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition mentioning the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise serious objection. As the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are found to be plausible, therefore, the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4.

At the outset, ld. AR submitted that this appeal is a duplication of another appeal being which has already been disposed off by the Division Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated

5.

Considering the above prayer by the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →