ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. HIMALIA PRIME ASSETS PVT LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 637/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal verified the DR's submission and found it to be correct that the appeal was a duplicate. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal (ITA No.637/Coch/2024) was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17. During the hearing, the Departmental Representative submitted that this appeal (ITA No.637/Coch/2024) was a duplicate of another physical appeal (ITA No.638/Coch/2024) filed against the same impugned order and requested to withdraw it.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal, identified as a duplicate of another appeal against the same order, should be allowed to be withdrawn and consequently dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Hearing: 24.03.2025

Asst.Year 2016-2017 The Assistant Commissioner of Himalia Prime Assets Pvt.Ltd. Income-tax, Circle – 1 Pulinkudi, Mulloor PO v. Thiruvananthapuram. Thiruvananthapuram – 695 527 PAN : AADCS2669D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Respondent by : Ms.Parvathy S, Advocate Date of Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Pronouncement :26.03.2025 O R D E R

Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM :

1.

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 17th May, 2024, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [“ld.CIT(A)” hereinafter] for the assessment year 2016-2017.

2.

During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative, at the outset, submitted that against the same impugned order, the Revenue has filed two appeals, i.e., one filed physically, being and the other online, i.e., the present appeal. Accordingly, the learned DR sought permission to withdraw the present appeal being a duplicate appeal. The submission of the learned DR was

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 26th day of March, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →