DEVARAJ GOUD KARRE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 79/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 February 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the second order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings was a duplication of the earlier order and was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that this appeal was against a duplicate order as the original appeal for the same assessment year was already decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously decided an appeal for AY 2013-14 vide order dated 30.05.2018.

What were the issues?

Whether a subsequent order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when a prior appeal on the same assessment year has already been decided by the Tribunal?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 10/02/2025

आदेश/ORDER PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.02.2024 of Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Nagpur (“Ld. CIT(A)) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative submitted that this appeal has been filed by the assessee against a duplicate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings, whereas the appeal of the assessee was already disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.09.2017 against which, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal in which was decided vide order dated 30.05.2018. Thus the Ld. AR has submitted that when the Tribunal has already decided the appeal of the assessee against the first order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.09.2017, then the second order passed in the faceless proceedings is nonest and liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that earlier the assessee has filed an appeal against order dated 28.09.2017 and this Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2018 in has already decided the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that this Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2018 in has decided the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.09.2017 of Ld. CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Tribunal has also reproduced the grounds raised by the assessee in the earlier appeal in ITA No.1925/Hyd/2017 as under : “(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erroneous on facts and law involved in the case. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals} erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer on estimation of income from liquor business at 5% on cost of sales as against without considering the appellant submissions. (3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts without considering the appellant submissions. (4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition an amount of Rs 20,00,000/- treating as income from other sources. (5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs 42,62,820/- as against ROI of Rs 3,19,020/- (6) Any other ground/grounds may be urged at the time hearing.”

5.

Now the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings again passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 arising from the same assessment order dated 30.03.2016 for the A.Y. 2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer while passing the exparte order when there was no response to the notices sent to the assessee. Once the dispute arising from the assessment order has already been decided by this Tribunal in the earlier appeal, then, the second order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings is nothing but duplication of the earlier order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad dated 28.09.2017. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 30.05.2018, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable being nonest and the same is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →