https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80705 The ITAT held that an assessee's appeal is maintainable even if the alternative remedy u/s 264 has been availed. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi, it ruled that provisions dealing with appellate jurisdiction do not bar an appellant from invoking appellate jurisdiction before CIT(A), despite having invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 264. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order holding the assessee's appeal as not maintainable was set aside, and he was directed to re-decide the appeal on merits as per law. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:17:51 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:17:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80705 The ITAT held that an assessee's appeal is maintainable even if the alternative remedy u/s 264 has been availed. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi, it ruled that provisions dealing with appellate jurisdiction do not bar an appellant from invoking appellate jurisdiction before CIT(A), despite having invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 264. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order holding the assessee's appeal as not maintainable was set aside, and he was directed to re-decide the appeal on merits as per law. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:17:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80705