No Second Appeal Allowed if First Was Decided on Merits | ITAT

Case Details: Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 43 (Mumbai - Trib.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member and
•  Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member
• Siddhesh Chaugule for the Appellant.
• Pravin Salunkhe for the Respondent.

Fact of the Case

The assessee company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year and declared a loss. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment, and additions were made to the total income of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) passed the order disposing of the appeal on merits.
Subsequently, the shareholder of the assessee was assessed to tax on the same amount as deemed dividend. The assessee filed an application for revision under section 264 before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking the deletion of additions made to the income of the assessee on account of deemed dividend.
The application was rejected by the PCIT. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, and the matter reached the Mumbai Tribunal.

Tribunal Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The scheme of the Act does not provide for filing separate appeals against the same assessment order. In case the first appeal preferred by the assessee against the Assessment Order would have been pending, the assessee would have been within its right to raise an additional ground.
Even in cases where the first appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed on account of technical reasons, the assessee would have a case for challenging the action of the CIT(A) in a subsequent appeal. However, in the present case, the first appeal preferred by the assessee was disposed of on merits (and not on account of technical reasons such as non-payment of taxes).
Therefore, the judicial precedent cited on behalf of the assessee was of no aid to the assessee. Further, the assessee filed the second appeal after the expiry of more than 4 years from the date of passing of the Assessment Order. In identical facts and circumstances, the PCIT had declined to condone the delay in filing the application filed under Section 264 of the Act, and admittedly, the assessee had chosen not to challenge the same.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the second appeal preferred by the assessee holding that under the scheme of the Act, the assessee was barred from availing appellate remedy by filing a second appeal before CIT(A).

List Of Cases Referred To

• ITO v. Ankush Finstock Ltd [2012] 21 taxmann.com 119/ 136 ITD 168 (Ahd-Trib) (para 6).