ITO, WARD-2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN vs. HARESHKUMAR JETHANAND TIKMANI, ULHASNAGAR

PDF · subscribers

ITA 4846/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)2 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT registry had registered the same appeal twice, leading to two separate orders for the same assessment year. The Tribunal decided to recall the order passed in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023 and dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) against an order passed in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023 for AY 2019-20. The Revenue contended that the appeal for the same AY was already disposed of by another bench, and thus, the order in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023 should not have been passed or registered.

What were the issues?

Whether it is permissible to pass two separate orders for the same appeal in the same assessment year and whether the appeal should be dismissed as infructuous if already adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 1/Mum/2025 (Arising out of Assessment Year : 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner of Sarafathali Mohammed Hasana Income Tax, Lebbai, Circle-20(1), vs. 36/3, Haji Juma Compound, Piramal Chambers, Sewri Cross Road, Mumbai Sewri West, Mumbai PAN : ACEPL8172E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sarafathali Mohammed Hasana Deputy Commissioner of Lebbai, Income Tax, 36/3, Haji Juma Compound, vs. Circle-20(1), Sewri Cross Road, Piramal Chambers, Sewri West, Mumbai Mumbai PAN : ACEPL8172E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 14-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-03-2025 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : M.A. No. 1/MUM/2025: The Revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Application against the order dated 27-05-2024 passed by the Tribunal in 2 M.A. No. 1/Mum/2025 & ITA No.4846/Mum/2023 relating Assessment Year (AY.) 2019-20. It is submitted by the revenue that appeal of the assessee for the very same assessment year has already been disposed of by the „F‟ Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4825/Mum/2023, dt. 17-05-2024. Hence, it is submitted that the order dt. 27-05-2024 passed in ITA No.4846/Mum/2023 for the very same assessment year cannot be registered in ITBA portal, meaning thereby, it is pointed out that the Tribunal has passed two different orders against the very same order of CIT(A) passed in the hands of the assessee for AY 2019-20. Accordingly, it is prayed that suitable order may be passed to rectify the above said mistake.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, on the basis of the facts submitted by the Revenue, we notice that the Registry has registered the appeal of the Revenue for the AY.2019-20 for the second time and both the appeals came to be posted before different Benches, which has resulted in passing of two separate orders for the very same assessment year in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the revenue is right in pointing out that the order dt. 27-05-2024 in needs to be recalled, as two orders cannot be passed on the very same appeal. The mistake has happened for the reason that the registry of ITAT has registered the very same appeal of the assessee two times. Accordingly, we recall the order dt. 27-05-2024 passed in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023.

ITA No. 4846/MUM/2023:

With the consent of the Ld.DR, we took up the appeal numbered as itself for hearing.

We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. Since this appeal has been registered for second time and the Tribunal has already

3 M.A. No. 1/Mum/2025 & adjudicated the appeal registered for the first time, vide order dt. 17-05- 2024 passed in this appeal does not require any adjudication afresh. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of the assessee as infructuous.

In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →