KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI DEWAS,DEWAS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the impugned order was a duplicate of a previously decided appeal. Therefore, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the earlier ITAT order.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) under the Faceless Scheme. However, this appeal was already decided by the CIT(A) in physical mode, and subsequently by the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether a duplicate order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when the appeal has already been decided earlier. The validity of an ex-parte order passed under the Faceless Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 14.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 10.12.2009 passed by learned ITO- 2(1), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dewas vs. ITO 2(1), Ujjain.
Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused.
With the able assistance of learned Representatives, it emerged during hearing that the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 has been passed by CIT(A) under ‘Faceless Scheme’ deciding the first-appeal instituted by assessee on 11.01.2020 against the assessment-order dated 10.12.2009 passed by AO. But the said first-appeal had already been disposed of by CIT(A) vide order dated 30.05.2011 in ‘physical mode’. That apart, against the order dated 30.05.2011 of CIT(A), there was next appeal to ITAT, Indore and the ITAT, has also passed order as early as on 23.09.2011, copies of both orders, namely the order dated 30.05.2011 of CIT(A) and order dated 23.09.2011 of ITAT are filed in Paper-Book. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is a duplicate order deciding the very same first-appeal of assessee which had already been decided on earlier occasion. It is also noteworthy that the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is an ex-parte order passed by CIT(A). Ld. AR submits that since the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is a duplicate order, the same deserves to be quashed.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the factual submissions made by Ld. AR but left the matter to the wisdom of Bench for final decision.
After careful consideration, we find that the assessee’s first-appeal had already been decided by CIT(A) vide order dated 30.05.2011 and thereafter the ITAT has also passed order dated 23.09.2011. On perusal of order of ITAT, we find that the ITAT has remanded matter to the file of AO Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dewas vs. ITO 2(1), Ujjain. for re-examining the issues and decide in accordance with law. Therefore, we direct the AO to give effect to ITAT’s order dated 23.09.2011. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in terms indicated above.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.06.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026