NIKUNJ BIPINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD - 3 (2) (1), SURAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 11/08/2023 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 203-14. Nikunj Bipinbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14
The assessee, in this appeal, has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the appeal as a duplicate one since the same issue in the same year was already decided in the appeal proceedings in physical manner.
2 The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal for about 40 days.
The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal though the same issue in the same year was already decided in the appeal proceedings in physical manner and the same order was further confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat.
The appellant reserves right to add, alter and withdraw any grounds of appeal.”
At the outset, it has been brought to our knowledge that against the assessment order dated 22/03/2016, the assessee had filed an appeal physically and at the same time another appeal was also filed online. That the appeal of the assessee filed in physical form stood already decided (allowed) by the Ld. CIT(A) vide common order dated 24/11/2017 passed in the case of the assessee as well as other related parties. It has been submitted that even the said order was further confirmed by this Tribunal. It has been further submitted that subsequently the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre decided the appeal filed online and, whereby, he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It has been submitted that since vide order dated 24/11/2017, the appeal of the assessee already stood allowed, therefore, the second/impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) has no force of law. The Ld. Counsel, in this respect, has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 30/05/2024, whereby, in the case of another assessee whose appeal was also decided along with the appeal of Nikunj Bipinbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14
the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal held that since the appeal of the assessee has already been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing relief to the assessee, therefore, the subsequent order has no legs to stand.
In view of the above stated position, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and the same is quashed. However, it is made clear that our above made observations, will not have any bearing on the earlier order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24/11/2017 allowing the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09 /03/2026. ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09 /03/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की "ितिलिप अ#ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 1. 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.
