S.D.CONSTRUCTIONS,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2400/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 June 2022AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal filed by the assessee against the same order had already been decided in their favour. Consequently, the current appeal was rendered infructuous and was allowed to be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order related to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Due to the demise of their previous Chartered Accountant, the assessee was unaware of the initial appeal filing and subsequently filed a second appeal against the same order. This second appeal was filed while the first appeal was still pending.

What were the issues?

Whether a second appeal filed against the same order, when a prior appeal has already been decided, is maintainable. The issue of the appeal becoming infructuous due to prior adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

order

: June 16, 2022 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.03.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has made the following submissions:

“1. The assessee had filed this appeal against the order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated 30/07/2019 u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 for AY 2015-2016.

2.

The assessee's matters were looked after by CA Sudipta Bhattacharya who passed away in March 2020. It appears that the said CA had filed this appeal in 2019 before the Hon'ble ITAT. However the assessee was not aware of the filing of the appeal, though the assessee had signed the documents but as the appeal filing receipts were not available with the assessee, they were under the belief that the appeal had not been filed. 3 After the demise of the earlier CA the assessee firm engaged another CA Sri Birendra Goyal, who reviewed all the pending matters and filed another appeal against the same order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated 30/07/2019 u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 for AY 2015-2016 being ITA No 243/Kol/2021.

Assessment Year: 2015-16 S.D. Constructions 4. It is therefore apparent that due to inadvertence and incomplete information the assessee filed two appeals against the passed u/s 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated 30/07/2019 u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 for AY 2015-2016 one being which has already been disposed in favour of the assessee vide order dated 01/10/2021 and other appeal i.e. ITA No. 2400/Kol/2019 was pending. 5 The assessee humbly submits that as the appeal being ITA No. 243/Kol/2021 has already been disposed in favour of the assessee vide order dated 01/10/2021 thus the appeal i.e. ITA No. 2400/Kol/2019 has now become infructuous. 6 The assessee thus prays that appeal i.e. ITA No.2400/Kol/2019 be allowed to be withdrawn as infructuous.

3.

In view of the above submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it comes out that the assessee has already preferred an appeal against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) which was registered as ITA No.243/Kol/2021 which has already been decided vide order dated 01.10.2021. In view of this, the second appeal filed by the assessee being not maintainable, is allowed to be withdrawn.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

Kolkata, the 16th June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →