Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred an appeal against an order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the present appeal, ITA No. 3710/Mum/2024, was a duplicate of ITA No. 3615/Mum/2024 which had already been heard. Therefore, the present appeal was infructuous.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was a duplicate of an earlier appeal that had already been heard. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn due to being a duplicate of a previously heard appeal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29-05-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short Ld.CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year (AY.) 2013-14, raising following grounds:
“1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decision as laid down by the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd 1., ignoring the fact that the implications of decision of Hon'ble High Court on merits are not limited to collection of demand.
2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that no orders referred to in prayer clause (a) of the petition for Assessment Years 2013-14, can be sustained ignoring the fact that resolution plan is applicable to debt recovery proceedings only not to the proceedings which may have implication other that recovery of debt from the corporate debtor including criminal proceedings against other persons including the former management and also there is no provision in the Income Tax Act, which enables to quash the orders passed and delete the demand raised after the resolution plan approved by the Hon'ble NCLT."
At the outset, the Ld.DR submitted that the appeal filed electronically by the Revenue against the same impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) having has already been heard on 03-09-2024 and the physical set of the same appeal had been inadvertently registered at i.e., the present appeal and, therefore, the same is being duplicate in nature, might be dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn.