ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI vs. YKK INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4679/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 September 2023AY 2006-07Bench: SH. CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed two appeals for the same cause of action. One of the appeals was treated as infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the same assessment year and first appellate order. Upon confrontation, the Revenue agreed that one appeal was redundant.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the inadvertent filing of multiple appeals by the Revenue for the same matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv
For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Hearing: 26.09.2023Pronounced: 26.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.4408/Del/2017
ITA No.4679/Del/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 30.01.2017 for Assessment Year 2006-07 in question.

2.

When the matter was called for hearing, it was found that the Revenue has filed two appeals namely and the captioned appeal First Appellate order for the A.Y. 2006-07 in question. These two appeals listed for hearing today, seem to have been filed by the Revenue for the same cause of action. These facts were confronted to the Revenue. The Learned CIT-D.R. for the Revenue on being confronted, readily agreed that one of the two appeals requires to be treated as infructuous.

ACIT vs. YKK India Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. In the light of discussion in course of hearing, the captioned is treated as infructuous. The other appeal namely ITA No.4408/Del/2017 thus survives for adjudication to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. The withdrawal of captioned appeal thus does not cause any prejudice to the interest of Revenue but rather seeks to weed out inadvertent double institution of appeal by the Revenue against the same grievance.

4.

Hence, the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →