LATA GUPTA,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD - 34(2), NEW DELHI

MA 458/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by Lata Gupta against the order dated 11.10.2023 concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The application sought to rectify apparent errors in the Tribunal's previous order, which allegedly failed to address additional grounds and evidence presented by the assessee during the hearing. The Tribunal found that the order dated 11.10.2023 indeed contained errors apparent on record, as the additional grounds and evidence were not considered, leading to a decision to recall the order and restore the appeal for re-hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781698 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2023
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Corporation vs CIT, 229 ITR 383
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSARA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANSH JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.458/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 91/Del/2020) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lata Gupta, 59/6, Prabhat Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-1100 05 PAN ABTPG2901Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(2), New Delhi. (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The miscellaneous application under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) by the applicant/assessee is against order dated 11.10.2023 in ITA No.91/Del/2020 for assessment year 2011-12. Assessee by Shri Priyansh Jain, CA Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.09.2025 Date of pronouncement .09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.458/Del./2023 2. Learned Authorized Representative for the Applicant/assessee has submitted that order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal mentions apparent error as under: “1.In para 6 of the order dated 11.10.2023 it has been mentioned that though the assessee has sought admission of additional grounds but has not placed any arguments on the said application. Copy of application dated 07.03.2023 seeking admission of additional grounds is enclosed as Annexure-5. Perusal of the same would show that the assessee raised 3 additional legal grounds and prayed for its admission In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Corporation vs CIT, 229 ITR 383. The same were very much argued before the Hon'ble Bench as is evident from copy of synopsis submitted during the course of hearing. Copy of synopsis as submitted by the assessee at the time of hearing is enclosed as Annexure-7. Further, for pressing additional ground 1 assessee relied on several case laws which were also placed on record at serial no. 2-5 (pages 2- 47) of the case law compilation submitted during the course of hearing. Copy of index of case law compilation submitted by the assessee at the time of hearing is enclosed as Annexure-8. However, in the order dated 11.10.2023 none of the additional grounds raised by the assessee have not been disposed and incorrect observation has been made that these grounds were not pressed. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, aforesaid inadvertant mistakes may kindly be rectified in the manner as may deem to be fit and more appropriate. 2. In para 7 of the order dated 11.10.2023, it has been held that the assessee has already filed all documentary evidence before the below authorities during assessment and first appellate proceedings then the same cannot be considered asadditional evidence. Therefore, application for seeking admissions of additional evidence is dismissed being misconceived and devoid of merits. Copy of additional evidences request dated 28.11.2022 made under rule 29 of ITAT Rules is enclosed as Annexure-6. Perusal of the same would show that pages 81 to 173 of the paperbook were in the nature of additional evidences and not submitted before the lower authorities. The same is further evident from the fact that Ld. AO in its assessment order has tabulated details of documents submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the order of CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The said documents were not submitted before the lower authorities and were submitted for the first time before the Hon'ble bench and were neither before the AO nor the CIT(A). Thus, there is incorrect observation in the order dated 11.10.2023 and the said order is based on this incorrect observation. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.458/Del./2023 3. In para 7 of the order dated 11.10.2023, it has been held that before the Id. CIT(A), the Id. AR, on behalf of assessee argued that the loan transaction were genuine and the assessee submitted complete information on the nature of source cash credit alongwith confirmation from the lenders thus no addition u/s. 68 or any other provision of the Act is required to be made. It has also been held that it was contended by the Id. AR that the assessee has discharged onus lay on her to explain to cash credits therefore no addition should have been in the hands of assessee. However, from the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) it is clear that the case was decided ex-parte (para 3.2 of order of Ld. CIT(A)). Thus, in the humblest opinion of the assessee there is complete misunderstanding of facts of the case and the apparent error may please be rectified and the order may pleaso be recalled to be heard refresh, 4. In para 7 of the order dated 11.10.2023, it has been held that Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Smt. Usha Aggarwal, Shri Ramesh Goenka and M/s. Rohini Promoters P Ltd., Shri Mohan Narang HUF and Shri Murlidhar are lenders to the assessee and that too without charging interest and without asking for repayment of loan amount from the debtor/assessee till date. Whereas correct facts as is evident from copy of synopsis are as under; Vijay Kumar Gupta-husband of the assessee. Rs. 1,10,50,000/- in account of the assessee for the purpose of purchase of 2 immovable properties. Out of this sum, Rs. 84,85,000/- was loan repaid by the husband of the assessee granted by her in the preceding years and outstanding as on 01.04.2010 and balance sum of Rs. 26,65,000/- was given as loan. There is no mention of assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 147/ 143(3) in the case of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta for AY 2011-12 wherein funds transferred by him to the assessee were examined by his assessing officer along with sources of funds in his hands. Manav Narang HUF During the subject year assessee sold an immovable property located at AE-8 Shalimar Bagh Delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 67,00,000/- to Manav Narang HUF and others. Copy of registered sale deed is enclosed as PB 117-127 with details of payment at PB 121. Thus, the said party has been wrongly taken as lender to the assessee and there is incorrect finding in the order dated 11.10.2023. Shri Murli Dhar Asrani - During FY 2010-11 assessee along with 2 others sold a property located at AL-86 S.F Shalimar Bagh, Delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/ to Shri Murli Dhar Asrani. Copy of registered sale deed is enclosed as PB 128-139. Out of the said consideration Rs. 4,50,000/- was received by the assessee on 17.05.2010. Thus, the said party has been wrongly taken as lender to Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.458/Del./2023 the assessee and there is incorrect finding in the order dated 11.10.2023. Smt. Usha Aggarwal During FY 2009-10 assessee gave a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to her family friend Smt. Usha Aggarwal through account payee cheque which was cleared from tank account of the assessee on 26.09.2009. Smt. Usha Aggarwal repaid the said amount to the assessee in the subject year. Thus, the said party has been wrongly taken as lender to the assessee and there is incorrect finding in the order dated 11.10.2023”. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue could not controvert the above facts. 4. From the examination of record in light of aforesaid rival submissions, it is crystal clear that order dated 11.10.2023 contains errors apparent on record as pleaded by the applicant in the application. Therefore, order dated 11.10.2023 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing on out of turn basis on 25.11.2025 for arguments. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application of the applicant/assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( M BALAGANESH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03rd October, 2025. Mohan Lal Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.458/Del./2023 Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "