Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,78,40,490/- under Section 144 read with Section 147 for AY 2018-19, which the CIT(A) upheld by dismissing the assessee's ex-parte appeal. The assessee filed a second appeal before the ITAT, but it was found that a physical appeal (ITA No. 5847/MUM/2024) with similar facts and grounds had already been filed and heard.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the present appeal (ITA No. 5858/MUM/2024) was a duplication of the physically filed appeal (ITA No. 5847/MUM/2024) that was heard on the same day. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the present appeal as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is maintainable if it is a duplicate of another appeal already filed and heard on the same facts and grounds.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
(Assessment Year : 2018–19) Rohit Prem Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, A-415 Vashi Plaza, Income Tax Department. Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703. PAN/GIR No. ADLPC7338R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Aishwarya Revenue by Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M):
1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2017- 18/10297102 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19.
2. Briefly stating, learned assessing officer passed assessment order u/s. 144 r/w 147 of the Act and made addition of Rs.
Rohit Prem Chhabra 1,78,40,490/- in the total income of the assessee on account of sale consideration and interest income. Aggrieved assessee passed an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A), assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid additions.
At the very outset it is informed by the learned representative for the assessee that the appeal in the physical form has already been filed on the similar facts and grounds against the impugned order, vide which has been heard today, hence present appeal has become infructuous.
In view of the above, it appears that this appeal is the duplication of physically filed appeal which is also listed for hearing today. Hence, this duplicate stands dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in open court on 06.01.2025.