MR. COLATHUR N. RAM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 35(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1513/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (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 Tribunal noted that a similar appeal for the same facts and grounds was already filed and heard. The present appeal was identified as a duplication and therefore infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions pertained to LTCG and income from house property. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the present appeal is infructuous due to duplication of a previously filed appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH

Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash D. Jotwani
For Respondent: Shri. H.M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 18/06/2024Pronounced: 17/09/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 46, Mumbai/10390/2016-17 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s. 250 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2013–14.

1.

MR. Colathur N. Ram 2. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred first appeal. Learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal against the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,90,23,053/- as LTCG and Rs. 3,41,117/- as income from house property in the total income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A), assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid addition made by the learned assessing officer.

4.

At the very outset it is informed by the learned representative for the assessee that the appeal in the physical form has already been filed on the similar facts and grounds against the impugned order vide which has been heard today, hence present appeal has become infructuous.

5.

In view of the above, it appears that this appeal is the duplication of physically filed appeal hence, this has become infructuous. 6. In the result, the present appeal no. 1513/Mum/2024, being in duplication, stands dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced on 17.09.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →