RAJESH KUMAR C JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1) (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3309/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 November 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's AR stated that a similar appeal (ITA No. 3323/Mum/2023) on the same grounds for the same assessment year was already decided in favor of the assessee. The AR argued that the present appeal is infructuous as the issue stands decided. The DR had no objections.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2010-11, challenging the reopening of assessment and an addition of Rs. 3,39,157/- made under section 68 of the Act. An earlier ex-parte order of dismissal was recalled.

What were the issues?

Whether the present appeal is infructuous as the issue has already been decided in a previous appeal filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri. Prashant Nagori
For Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh SR DR
Hearing: 22.11.2024Pronounced: 26.11.2024

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajesh Kumar C Jain ITO Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai Flat No. 09, Surendra Apartment, DM Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Road, Dahisar (West), 400097 Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ADFPJ 0970 N (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Prashant Nagori Respondent by : Shri. Uodal Raj Singh SR DR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), relevant to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has challenged this appeal on the ground of reopening of the assessment and on the addition of Rs. 3,39,157/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. It is also observed that the Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2024 had passed the ex parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the same was recalled in Miscellaneous Application No. 229/Mum/2024, dated 22.11.2024.

3.

The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in had decided the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.06.2024, thereby allowing (A.Y. 2010-11) Rajesh Kumar C. Jain the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee erroneously had filed the present appeal on the same grounds for the year under consideration and prayed that as the issue raised by the assessee stands decided in the earlier order of the Tribunal, this appeal may be dismissed as infructuous. The ld. DR had nothing to controvert on the same.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee had filed another appeal in for the impugned order which has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. As there are no other issues to be decided by the Tribunal in this appeal, we deem it fit to dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →