Smt. Meena Rao, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 4328/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6553 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 250; 154; 15

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE MRS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4328/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. MEENA RAO HOUSE NO.20, SECTOR 15, PART-1 GURGAON. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), GURGAON. PAN : AKUPR 9029E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2016 OF CIT(A)-II, GURGAON PE RTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING GROUN D NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN RECTIFYING U/S 154 OF THE ACT HIS OWN ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6), WHICH WAS A DE TAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ALL THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PUT FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER AND IN THE SEC OND ROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN-PRESENT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IT WAS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR SH. PRADEEP SI NGH GAUTAM. 3. THE LD. SR. DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE GROUN DS RAISED SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 IS THAT T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS NOT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 03.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.02.2020 ITA NO.4328/DEL/2016 SMT. MEENA RAO VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 4 RECTIFIABLE. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER ATTENT ION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDER U/S 154 WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF T HE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 27.01.2016 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 17.11.2015 IN APPEAL NO.46/14- 15 U/S 250 (6) WAS RECTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED REFERRING PARA 1, 2, 2.3 AND PARA 2.4 , THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HE ARD WHO HAS CHALLENGED THAT THE CIT(A) COULD NOT RECTIFY THE ORDER. THE ARGUMENTS I T WAS SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. THE ORDER PASSED HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT RAJKOT VS. GOVINDBHAI MAMA IYA DATED 04.09.2014 AND VARIOUS CASES. THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT RECTIFICA TION IS MAINTAINABLE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT T HE ORDER PASSED IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HAS NOT EVEN CARED TO ENGAGED ANY CO UNSEL AS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS PRAYE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ORDER WAS BAD IN LA W. THUS, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER MAY BE UPHELD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TI ME OF HEARING ITSELF ON 06 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4328/DEL/2016 SMT. MEENA RAO VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 4 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR AR, ITAT NEW DELHI