BENGANI EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2378/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 January 2026AY 2004-2005Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial 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 CIT(A)-21 did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the appeal already disposed of by another CIT(A). The order passed by CIT(A)-21 was set aside, and the earlier order of Ld.CIT(A)-15 dated 15/06/2017 was restored. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the department.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 26.08.2025 by CIT(A)-21 for AY 2004-2005. The original assessment was made on 29.11.2006. An earlier appeal was disposed of by Ld.JCIT(A)-15 on 15/06/2017 in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether CIT(A)-21 had jurisdiction to pass an order on an appeal already disposed of by another CIT(A) for the same assessment year. Whether the department should be penalized for causing injustice due to inaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 14/01/2026Pronounced: 14/01/2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.08.2025, passed by the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-21 for the assessment year 2004-2005.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the original assessment in the case of assessee was passed on 29.11.2006. The appeal was disposed off by the Ld.JCIT(A)-15, Kolkata in Appeal No 155/CIT(A)/15-16/Wd-9(2)/Kol vide an order dared 15/06/2017 the same reads as follows:- A 3. The appeal of the assessee has been allowed. The Ld.CIT(A)-21 subsequently took up the appeal and issued notice to the assessee on 31/12/2024 and passed an order dated 26/08/2025 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Form 35 is defective. It was the submission that the appeal having already been disposed of the same of appeal could not have been now disposed of by another Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals). It was submission that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 15/06/2017 has also not been given effect to by the AO. It was the submission that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal may be set aside and the AO may be directed to grant effect to the order of the order of Ld.CIT(A)-15 Kolkata dated 15/06/2017.

4.

In reply, the Ld.Sr. DR submitted that she doesn’t know what to say in the present case and she would only support to the Ld.CIT(A), Kolkata- 21.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the appeal filed originally by the assessee in Appeal No.155/CIT(A)/15-16/Wd- 9(2)/Kol vide an order dated 15/06/2017 against the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2016, has already been held in favour of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A), Kolkata-21 did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the said appeal under DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080036497(1), dated 26.08.2025 for the assessment year 2004-05. This being so, the order passed by the CIT(A), Kolkata-21 is set aside and the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-15 dated 15/06/2017 is restored and the AO is hereby to directed to give effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 15/06/2017.

6.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that as the assessee is deprived of justice for the inaction on the part of the department, therefore, he requested that a cost of Rs.5000/- may be imposed for causing the injustice to the assessee. Accordingly, a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →