Smt. Madhu Agarwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3341/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69499 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH E EE E : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .3341/DEL/2013 3341/DEL/2013 3341/DEL/2013 3341/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2009 2009 2009 2009- -- -10 1010 10 LATE LATE LATE LATE SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH AGARWAL & SONS, AGARWAL & SONS, AGARWAL & SONS, AGARWAL & SONS, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GAUTAM AGARWAL, GAUTAM AGARWAL, GAUTAM AGARWAL, GAUTAM AGARWAL, BK BKBK BK- -- -101, SHALIMAR BAGH, 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : ADVPA2626A. ADVPA2626A. ADVPA2626A. ADVPA2626A. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -19(1), 19(1), 19(1), 19(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXII, NEW DELHI DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2013 FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS. GROUND NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSEC UTION. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL APPLYING THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. 38 ITD 320. THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF ITAT IS BASED UPON THE P RESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WHO IS THE LEGA L HEIR OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISS ING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ITA-3341/DEL/2013 2 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE YEAR 2011 BUT THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., SMT. MADHU AGARWAL HAD EXPIRED IN 2010. THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE SOME OF THE DETAILS, ESPECIALLY THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDI TORS. THAT IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOW, THE LEGAL HEIRS WOULD FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING THE C ONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE CREDITORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE THE ADDITION OF 25% OF THE CREDITORS, WHILE, UNDER THE ACT, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF 25% OF THE CRE DITORS. HE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BUT, HE HAD NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDE S AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE M ATTER RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEE MED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 26.11.2013 VK. ITA-3341/DEL/2013 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : LATE SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, LATE SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, LATE SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, LATE SMT. MADHU AGARWAL, PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH AGARWAL & SONS, PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH AGARWAL & SONS, PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH AGARWAL & SONS, PROP. M/S RAM PARKASH AGARWAL & SONS, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GAUTAM AGARWAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GAUTAM AGARWAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GAUTAM AGARWAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI GAUTAM AGARWAL, BK BKBK BK- -- -101, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI. 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI. 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI. 101, SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -19(1), NEW DELH 19(1), NEW DELH 19(1), NEW DELH 19(1), NEW DELHI. I.I. I. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR