Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Geojit Financial Services Ltd. (ITAT Cochin)
In the case of DCIT Vs Geojit Financial Services Ltd., the ITAT Cochin dismissed a duplicate appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-19. The Revenue had previously filed an appeal under ITA No. 418/Coch/2023, which was already heard on August 21, 2024, and was awaiting a decision. Despite this, another appeal was filed for the same assessment year, which the counsel for Geojit Financial Services Ltd. highlighted as a duplicate and therefore, not maintainable. The counsel argued that having two appeals for the same assessment year was unnecessary and the second appeal should be dismissed as infructuous.
The Revenue’s Senior Departmental Representative (DR) was unable to provide a counter-argument to challenge the claim made by the counsel for the assessee. After considering the facts and reviewing the available materials, the ITAT agreed with the assessee’s position. Since the appeal was clearly a duplicate, the tribunal concluded that it was not maintainable and dismissed the case as infructuous. This ruling reinforces the principle that duplicate appeals without any new grounds or justifications are not entertained by the tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT COCHIN
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 15.03.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned appeal filed by the Revenue is the duplicate appeal. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the Revenue has already preferred an appeal for the same assessment year in ITA No. 418/Coch/2023 which was heard on 21-08-2024 and reserved for order. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the impugned appeal preferred by Revenue is not maintainable and therefore liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
3. On the contrary, the learned Sr. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee.
4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the impugned appeal filed by the Revenue on hand is the duplicate appeal, we hold that the impugned appeal is not maintainable and therefore we dismiss the same as infructuous.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced on 26th September, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Author Bio
