SADHANA SUNIL KADADEKAR , MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 34(3), MUMBAI

ITA 497/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4929 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPESH RUPARELIA
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM IT A N o. 497 /M u m / 20 23 ( A ss e s s me n t Y e a r: 2014 -1 5 ) Sadhana Sunil Kadadekar A 303, Mahesh Darshan, New Link Road, Kandarpada, Dahisar West, Mumbai-400 068 V s. ITO, Ward 34(3) Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 P A N / G I R N o. AU BP K 66 12 P (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dipesh Ruparelia Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Meshram D a te o f H e a r i n g : 12.08.2024 D ate of P ro n o u n c e me n t : 14.08.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-250 (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15. 2. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 370 days for which the assessee had filed an Affidavit along with the application for delay of condonation. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that there was sufficient cause for the said delay and, hence, the delay is condoned. 2 ITA No. 4 9 7 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Sadhana Sunil Kadadekar vs. ITO 3. During the appellate proceeding, the learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee submitted that the said appeal was filed erroneously in the name of the assessee instead of filing the appeal in her husband’s name Shri Sunil Kadadekar in whose name the impugned assessment order dated 28.11.2016 was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short). The ld. AR further contended that the assessee’s husband Shri Sunil Kadadekar filed his return of income under his PAN: AGFPK3188G declaring total income at Rs.39,09,810/- who subsequently filed a revised return on 04.03.2015, declaring total income at Rs.27,18,676/-. The assessee’s husband is an employee of a public sector company, i.e., Oil & Natural Gas Limited (ONGC for short) in whose case the ld. A.O. initiated the scrutiny assessment. The assessment order was passed by the ld. A.O. making an addition on the employer’s contribution to post retirement benefit scheme as perquisite in the hands of Shri Sunil Kadadekar. It is observed that against the impugned assessment order, an appeal was filed before the first appellate authority erroneously in the name of the present assessee in her PAN: A U BP K 66 12 P a nd the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal which was filed in the name of this assessee. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) had nothing to controvert on the fact that the assessment order was passed in the wrong assessee’s name. 3 ITA No. 4 9 7 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Sadhana Sunil Kadadekar vs. ITO 6. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessment order was passed in the name of the husband of this assessee Shri Sunil Kadadekar who was an employee of ONGC. The ld. CIT(A) has erroneously passed the order holding that this assessee was an employee of ONGC and had received salary income during the year under consideration. The ld. AR for the assessee has also failed to file revised Form No. 35 before the first appellate authority. On this factual note, we hold that the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed in the name of the wrong assessee who was neither assessed by the ld. A.O. nor was the assessment order passed in her name, is dismissed as infructuous. It is also pertinent to point out that the ld. AR had given a statement at the bar that another appeal in assessee’s husband’s name who is the actual assessee in this case is filed before the ld. CIT(A) which is pending adjudication. We, therefore, deem it fit to allow the present appeal filed by this appellant by holding that this order does not have a bearing on the actual appeal filed by the assessee’s husband and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue raised by Shri Sunil Kadadekar on the merits of that case. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 14.08.2024 Roshani , Sr. PS 4 ITA No. 4 9 7 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Sadhana Sunil Kadadekar vs. ITO Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai