BHARAT TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 922/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 August 2025AY 2023-24Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the disputed demand has been rectified and the issues are resolved as confirmed by the appellant, the appeal filed has become infructuous and is therefore dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, which was processed under Section 143(1) leading to a tax demand. The assessee filed an appeal against this intimation. Subsequently, a rectification order was passed, resolving the dispute, rendering the appeal infructuous.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal is infructuous when the dispute raised has been resolved by a subsequent rectification order?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr DR
Hearing: 07.08.2025Pronounced: 14.08.2025

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 11.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points of law and facts.

2.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant and confirming charging of surcharge @ 37% of Rs.8,651/- as per order passed u/s. 154 of I.T. Act dtd. 01-04-2024 instead of Rs. Nil.

3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant and confirming charging of health Bharat Trust Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2023-24 - 2– and education cess of Rs.1,281/- as per order passed u/s.154 of I.T. Act dtd. 01-04-2024 instead of Rs.935/-.

4.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the ground of the appellant and confirming charging of interest u/s.234C of I. T. Act of Rs.611/- as per order passed u/s.154 of I.T. Act dtd. 01-04-2024 instead of Rs.435/-.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 13.07.2023, declaring a total income of Rs. 77,940/- and tax paid of Rs. 33,940/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC on 18.12.2023, resulting in the same assessed income but raising a tax demand of Rs. 13,600/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said intimation under Section 143(1), the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous, observing as under:

The Appellant has filed his original return of income for the Financial Year 2022-23 and relevant to the assessment year 2023-24 on 13/07/2023 declaring total income at Rs. 77,940/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The present appeal i.e. Appeal No: ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 LUCKNOW/10009/2022-23 arises on 12-01-2024 against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated 18/12/2023 passed by ADIT, CPC of the income tax Act. The above return was processed u/s 143(1) CPC/2324/A5/376922149 dated 18/12/2023. -The assessee vide rectification request 611095660040124 dated 18/12/2023 has stated that there is a mistake(s) in the said intimation u/s 143(1) which is apparent from record within the meaning of Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the appellant had received the rectified order u/s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, on 01/04/2024, the dispute raised in the above appeal was resolved. Thus, the appeal filed becomes infructuous for the appellant.

Demand has been cancelled by rectification order dated 01/04/2024 the appeal filed becomes infructuous for the appellant Bharat Trust Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2023-24 - 3–

5. As the disputed demand has already been rectified and appellant has also confirmed that the issue contended vide present appeal has been resolved, Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.

5.

In view of the above, it is clear that the disputed demand has already been rectified, and the issues raised by the assessee stand resolved through the rectification order dated 01.04.2024. Consequently, no grievance now survives for adjudication in the present appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →