Mrs. Anu Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3376/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7152 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3376/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MRS. ANU GUPTA, 28/6A,KAMRUDIN NAGAR, NAJAFGARH ROAD, NANGLOI, NEW DELHI. PAN: AERPG 3473J VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 33(3), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI DATED 25.02.2015 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE FACTS & LAW OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY DISALL OWED THE INTEREST OF RS.3,04,441/- PAID TO M/S TATA CAPITAL LTD AND M/S RELIANCE CAPITALS LTD AND CONFIRMED BY THE HON. CIT (APPEALS). 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS HAS WRONGLY ADDED RS. 4,31,855/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WHEREAS THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD.AO. ITA NO.3376/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO LEAVE, ADD OR OTHERW ISE AMEND ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AFTER THE HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. A. A. WHICH IS BASED ON UNJUSTIFIE D AND BASELESS GROUNDS. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 14 .09.2016, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD, B UT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE. NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 36 F ILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. SINCE THE OFFICE COULD NOT SERVE THE NOTIC E UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO INCORRECT ADDRESS, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE . THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS ) VIS--VIS THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM JUDICIOUSLY AND I FIN D NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.3376/DEL/2015 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.