Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Smt. Kanchana Bai Chordia vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (05 May 2022)

Assessee cannot agitate once again on the same issues, which are already adjudicated

MANU/IX/0301/2022

Direct Taxation

The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring total income and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny and after following due procedures, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 44,10,951 after making addition towards disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(iii) of the IT Act of Rs. 2,50,000 and addition towards long term capital gains tax. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The issue of claim of relief under Section 54 of the IT Act is pending before the ITAT by way of miscellaneous petition. Meanwhile, the assessee has filed another appeal against the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act before the learned CIT(A) belatedly after a delay of 2002 days. However, the learned CIT(A) has noted from the grounds taken and the issues raised are already adjudicated in the appeal filed against the order under Section 147 of the IT Act by the learned CIT(A) vide his order and thereafter by ITAT in its order. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that, the assessee cannot agitate once again on the same issues, which are already adjudicated. Hence, the appeal filed now before the learned CIT(A) against the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act is not maintainable in law.

Since the assessee has initially preferred an appeal against the reassessment order under Section 147 of the IT Act against which, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the same was concluded by the learned CIT(A) vide his order, against which, the appeal filed before the ITAT has also been concluded vide Tribunal's order. Since the assessee has again filed another appeal against the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act with a delay of 2002 days by raising the issues already adjudicated in the appeal filed against the order under Section 147 of the IT Act, the learned CIT(A) has correctly dismissed the appeal on both the counts of delay and non-maintainability of the appeal filed by the assessee. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADDITIONS   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved