ARUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessee had inadvertently filed two appeals against the same order, one online and one physically. The online appeal (ITA No.4244/M/2023) was already decided by the Tribunal and the impugned order was set aside. The Assessee requested that the filing of two appeals be excused.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had inadvertently filed two simultaneous appeals challenging the same order. One of these appeals had already been decided by the Tribunal, setting aside the impugned order. Therefore, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the current appeal should be dismissed as infructuous due to a prior decision on a parallel appeal concerning the same order.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.09.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12.
2 ITA No.4259/M/2024 M/s. Saint Gobain Materiaux De Construction Sas, France
The Ld. AR of the Assessee at the outset has submitted that inadvertently the Assessee challenged the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai which is under consideration in the instant appeal, simultaneously by filling 02 appeals one by online e-filling second one in physical mode. Online/E-filed appeal being ITA No.4244/M/2023 has already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2024, whereby the impugned order is set aside and therefore the present appeal is liable to be dismissed being infructuous. The Assessee further submitted that inadvertently the Assessee had filed two simultaneous appeals and therefore the action of the Assessee in filing two appeals challenging the same order, may be excused.
The Ld. D.R. did not refute the claim of the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed being infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy// By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
