Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. It was pointed out by both parties that another appeal with similar grounds for the same assessment year and against the same order was already filed by the Revenue.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the present appeal was a duplicate filing of the appeal already filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is a duplicate and thus infructuous.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 24/05/2023 passed by CIT(A)-53, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) / 147 for the A.Y.2016-17.
It has been pointed out by both the parties that Revenue has filed another appeal being for the same Assessment Year against same impugned order dated 24/05/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-Mumbai raising Larsen & Toubro Ltd. exactly similar grounds of appeal. Thus, it is a duplicate filing of appeal by the Revenue in the A.Y.2016-17. Accordingly, is dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 23rd December, 2024.