Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, filed a nil return for AY 2017-18. A scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 led to significant additions/disallowances, determining total income at Rs.5,66,79,914/-, which were partly upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in an order under section 250. The assessee subsequently filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Held
During the appellate proceedings, it was brought to the Tribunal's attention by the assessee's representative that an electronic appeal (ITA No. 4771/Mum/2023) had already been filed for the same cause of action, and this manual appeal was filed erroneously. The Departmental Representative did not controvert this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal found the present appeal to be a duplicate and thus dismissed it as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed manually before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was a duplicate appeal, given that an electronic appeal for the same cause of action had already been filed and numbered.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
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'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. A.O. as well as the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore, liable to be annulled.
2. That the assessment order passed by the ld. A.O. is further illegal because of being passed without having a valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee company.
3. That the ld. A.O. grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making additions and ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding additions of Rs.1,61,98,774/- to the income of the assessee company only on surmises, presumptions and conjectures.
4. That the ld. A.O. as well as the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in charging commission on failed banking transactions of Rs.1,56,70,750/-.
(A.Y. 2017-18) Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited vs. ITO 5. That the ld. A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in presuming and assessing commission income from transactions within group companies.
6. That the rate of commission being 3% adopted by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee is excessive and unreasonable.
7. That the invoking of provisions of Sect. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act for levy of tax at higher rate on commission income is not tenable under the law.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and had filed its return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring Nil income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment order dated 30.12.2019 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the ld. A.O. made various additions/disallowance and thereby determined the total income at Rs.5,66,79,914/-.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the impugned additions and the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26.10.2023 had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).
During the appellate proceeding, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee submitted that the assessee had e-filed the appeal which was numbered as and had also manually filed the present appeal erroneously.
The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) has also not controverted the same.
(A.Y. 2017-18) Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited vs. ITO 8. Upon considering the same and since the assessee has filed an appeal electronically on the same cause of action and the same has been numbered, the present appeal is a duplicate appeal and according dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2024.