I.T.O WD - 36(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TIRUPATI ENGINEERING WORKS, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that a rectification order under section 154 had been passed, which determined the assessee's total income at the originally declared amount. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation which was disallowed by the AO, leading to a higher assessed income. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under section 154 for rectification of the AO's computation.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is rendered infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
ORDER
Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM
This appeal preferred by the Revenue is filed against the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XX, Kolkata for the assessment year 2011-12.
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.36,75,250/- and claimed depreciation of Rs.35,52,875/- which was not allowed by the AO. The AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.72,28,130/- by an order dated 21.05.2012 under section 143(1) of the Act. The C.I.T.(A) allowed by an order dated 04.06.2013 the claim of the assessee made towards depreciation against which the Revenue 2 M/s. Tirupati Engineering Works preferred this appeal before us. Meanwhile, the assessee filed an application dated 23.08.2012 under section 154 of the Act seeking to rectify the computation made by the AO in determining the amount of Rs.72,28,125/- instead of Rs.36,75,230/-. The Central Processing Centre accepted the e-application under section 154 of the Act and communicated the rectification order vide reg:CPC/1112/ TS/1207818509 dated 24.08.2012 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.36,75,250/- instead of Rs.72,28,125/-. The Counsel for the assessee placed such order before us and submitted that the appeal filed before the ITAT has become infructuous in view of the rectification order dated 24.08.2012 and sought to dismiss the appeal. The ld. DR did not controvert the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
Heard rival submissions. We find it evident from the order of communication dated 24.08.2012 that under section 154 of the Act the total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.36,75,250/-. In view of the above, we are of the view that the present appeal needs no adjudication, therefore, it is dismissed as infructuous.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026