DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. H. PRAKASHCHAND KOTHARI, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 446/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 October 2015AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the current appeal had become infructuous because a similar appeal concerning the same order had already been adjudicated. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(Appeals) order for assessment year 2008-09. The case was mistakenly listed for hearing. A similar appeal against the same CIT(Appeals) order had already been heard and decided.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is infructuous due to a prior adjudication on the same matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
For Respondent: Shri Surajmal Daga, CA
Hearing: 15.10.2015Pronounced: 16.10.2015

Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dated 24.06.2014 of the CIT(Appeals)-III Bangalore relating to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

It was clarified that by mistake the Registry had listed the case for hearing on 14.10.2015 before ‘A’ Bench. The mistake was due to inadvertence as the hearing date was fixed with reference to defect notice for rectification of defects. The defects have been rectified on 28.3.2013. We find that the appeal against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals) has been heard and order passed on 29.6.2015 in ITA No.1242/Bang/2014. Hence this appeal in becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 3.

Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of October, 2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →