Late shri Rakesh Sethi through Legal Heir Mrs. Anju Sethi , Delhi V. DCIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi

ITA 1896/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9100 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI F BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1896/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 LATE SHRI RAKESH SETHI THROUGH (LEGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU SETHI), 37/2B, GWALIOR HOUSE, RAJPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NEW DELHI-110054. PAN-AWIPS4718D VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI-110055. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH.GOVIND SINGHAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 04.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 .08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. DCIT, NEW DELHI D ATED 30.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIS MISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, OF RS.1,58,404/-. 2. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISM ISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT LEGAL HEIR ON THE SOLE GROUN D THAT THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE E-FILED WHEREAS IT WAS FILED MAN UALLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE LEGAL HEIR OF T HE DECEASED APPELLANT AND WAS IN NO POSITION TO E FILE THE APPE AL. 3. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DISMISS ING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1896/DEL/2018 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. SR. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE APPEAL MEMO AND THE G ROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2018 ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS R EJECTED ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE APPEAL BY ELECTRONIC M ODE. BEFORE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING LEGA L HEIR OF LATE SH. RAKESH SETHI, DOES NOT HAVE DIGITAL SIGNATURE. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW, IF ANY. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF LD.CIT(A) FOR D ECISION AFRESH. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRT UAL HEARING ON 09 TH AUGUST, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* ITA NO.1896/DEL/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ]