What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the appeal was indeed a duplicate and an earlier, similar appeal had already been decided. Therefore, the present appeal was rendered infructuous.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's authorized representative submitted that this appeal was a duplicate filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the present appeal, being a duplicate filing, is infructuous.

Krishnan Rajaraman, Puducherry vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 17.02.2026Pronounced: 17.02.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

The Ld. AR submitted that the present appeal is a duplicate appeal filed in inadvertently by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the other appeal in is already decided by the coordinate bench vide order dated 28.01.2026 and therefore the Ld. AR submitted that the Krishnan Rajaraman :- 2 -:

present appeal becomes infructuous. After perusing the submissions and the material on record, we dismiss the appeal as infructuous.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th day of February, 2026 at Chennai.

KRISHNAN RAJARAMAN,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUCHERRY

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments