ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Vidya Bhushan Juneja, Rohtak

ITA 3545/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9589 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3545/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Rohtak Vs. Smt. Sudarshan Juneja [Legal heir of (Late) Mr. Vidya Bhusan Juneja] H. No.17/643 Arya Nagar, Rohtak PAN-ABWPJ 9258J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Beenu, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) Respondent by None ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal was originally filed by Revenue against impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], for Assessment Year 2010-11 in respect of Mr. Vidya Bhushan Juneja (now deceased). Subsequently, Revenue has ITA No.3545 /Del/2014 ITO vs. Smt. Sudarshan Juneja Page 2 of 3 brought Smt. Sudarshan Juneja, widow of (Late) Mr. Vidya Bhusan Juneja, on record as the respondent. (A.1) Assessment Order dated 22/03/2013 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) wherein income was determined at Rs.1,76,02,309/- (rounded off to Rs.1,76,02,310/-), as against returned income of Rs.4,40,710/-. The appeal filed by the assessee against the aforesaid assessment order was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), vide the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014. (B) At the time of hearing before us, the Respondent, Smt. Sudarshan Juneja, legal heir of (Late) Mr. Vidya Bhushan Juneja; was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the respondent, we heard the Ld. SR. DR for Appellant (Revenue). She relied on the assessment order. However, she was unable to point out any mistake or error in the impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). She was also unable to bring forth any facts and circumstances or legal provision or decided precedents for our consideration to persuade us to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of ITA No.3545 /Del/2014 ITO vs. Smt. Sudarshan Juneja Page 3 of 3 the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Appellant Revenue has failed to make a case for any interference with the impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), and also because Revenue has failed to point out any mistake or error either on facts and circumstances of the case or in law, we decline to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in view of the foregoing; and in the specific facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. (C) In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 28/10/2022 /- Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/10/2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI