Itxa/1123/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds-1, Mumbai v. B4U Broadband India Pvt. Ltd

JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2017 alongwith INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-1, Mumbai… Appellant V/s. M/s. B4U Broadband India Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the Appellant Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. P.C.:- DATE : 19 NOVEMBER 2019. Heard. 2.These two Appeals under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order dated 7 November 2016 ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). These two Appealsrelate to Assessment Year 2010-11 (in relation to Section 201(1) and201(1A) of the Act. 3.We are informed by the learned Counsel for the partiesthat the common impugned order dated 7 November 2016challenged in both these appeals has been recalled by the Tribunalon 4 May 2018. Moreover, a fresh order has thereafter been passedby the Tribunal on 25 July 2018 in the Appeal of the Revenue beforeit. We are further informed that the order dated 25 July 2016 is asubject matter of an Appeal by the Revenue being Income TaxAppeal No. 1264 of 2019. This appeal is awaiting admission.Therefore, according to us the present two Appeals have becomeinfructuous. 4.However, Mr. Chhotary, learned Counsel appearing forthe Revenue submits that these two Appeals should be kept pendingtill this Court decides on the Appellant’s Revenue Appeal from theorder dated 25 July 2018. We see no reason to do the same. Thesetwo Appeals arise from the common impugned order which is nolonger in existence, thus the order impugned in these two Petitions isonly academic. However, Mr. Chhotary, learned Counsel appearing for 5.Accordingly, these Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. NITIN JAMDAR, J. M.S. SANKLECHA, J.