Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal against an order from the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17, challenging an addition of Rs. 21,95,50,212/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and other grounds related to an NCLT order and IBC proceedings. During the hearing, the assessee's representative informed the tribunal that the present appeal was a duplication of another appeal (ITA No. 1559/Mum/2024) already pending before the tribunal and requested its dismissal as infructuous.
Held
The tribunal acknowledged the submission that the present appeal was a duplication of another pending appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the present appeal (ITA No. 1501/Mum/2024) as withdrawn, considering it to have become infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal should be dismissed as infructuous when it duplicates another appeal pending before the same tribunal.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
Before: SHRI BR BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)13, Mumbai/10196/2018–19 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 [A.Y.] 2016–17.
Ornate Spaces Private Limited 2. The appellant assessee has approached this tribunal on the following grounds: “
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ['CIT (A)'] erred by passing the Order upholding the addition of Rs. 21,95,50,212/- despite request to keep the proceedings in abeyance pending cancellation of demand in view of passing of Order by NCLT dated 6th October, 2023 in case of the appellant whereby demand under reference got cancelled and appeal filed before CIT(A) became otiose. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have kept the appellant proceedings in abeyance.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not annulling/cancelling the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the resolution plan has been approved u/s. 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, being binding on the Central Government and no claim of the demand for the AY 2016- 17 was made during the IBC proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the order.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 21,95,50,212/- being unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Ld. AO to delete the addition made of Rs. 21,95,50,212/-u/s 68 of the Act.
4. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove should be granted…….”
3. Learned Representative for the assessee has submitted that another is also pending in this tribunal and listed today. It is further submitted that the present appeal no. 1501/Mum/2024 is being in duplication, hence be dismissed as infructuous.
4. We have heard learned representative for the revenue.
5. As the present appeal is in the duplication of another pending ITA No. 1559/Mum/2024, hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
Ornate Spaces Private Limited 6. In the result, the present appeal no. 1501/Mum/2024, being in duplication, stands dismissed as withdrawn having become infructuous.
Order pronounced on 24.06.2024.