RITU SAXENA,DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 54(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 18/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Ritu Saxena against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which arose from assessments made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The assessments were based on deposits in three bank accounts attributed to Saxena, which were considered as income/sales/receipts by the tax authorities. Saxena contended that these accounts were opened and operated by her employer, Mr. Tarun Goyal, without her knowledge, and that her signatures were forged on the tax returns filed. The tribunal found merit in her claims and allowed the appeals, directing a re-assessment after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23800 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.18 & 19/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Ritu Saxena, B-118, Shastri Nagar, Near Jain Mandir, Delhi – 110 052. PAN: ABLPS9721L Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(4), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CA Revenue by : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 13.11.2009 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), XXVI, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeals No.218/07-08 and 130/08-09 arising out of the appeals before it against the orders dated 24.12.2007 and 29.12.2008 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-33(4), New ITAs No.18 & 19/Del/2018 Ritu Saxena vs. ITO 2 Delhi and ITO, Ward-33(1), New Delhi, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee is an individual and a housewife who claims was working with M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. during 1997 to 2003 and as per the assessee, one Mr. Tarun Goyal was her employer. The tax authorities have recorded that the assessee was carrying on the business during the relevant financial year. We find that, the impugned assessment order and the impugned order of the ld. first appellate authority are both passed without any representation of the present appellant. The additions have been made on the basis of amounts deposited in the three accounts of the assessee which the tax authorities have considered to be the income/sales/receipts. 3. An affidavit is filed by the appellant/assessee in regard to the impugned assessments that Mr. Tarun Goyal had opened the accounts in the name of the assessee who was his employee and he had deposited the amounts in the bank and operated the accounts without any knowledge of the assessee. Even the returns were filed without her knowledge forging her signatures. The appellant has filed affidavits in regard to both the assessment years that the appeals befoe CIT(A), were also filed in her name without her knowledge. 4. The ld. AR has filed before us a copy of a criminal complaint filed with SHO, Police Station, Karol Bagh, New Delhi about the aforesaid alleged act of ITAs No.18 & 19/Del/2018 Ritu Saxena vs. ITO 3 forgery against Mr. Tarun Goyal. Though the ld. AR was not aware if any case has been registered or is under investigation. However, the endorsements bearing receipt of the complaint are filed before us. 5. Further, on going through the record, we find that as the impugned orders of the CIT(A) have been challenged after eight years, earlier information was sought from the Department as to when the copies of impugned orders were supplied to the assessee and the Department has informed that after restructuring of the Department and jurisdictions in 2014 and then in 2020 the records are not available. 6. Assessee has mentioned of the fact that it was only when the tax Department reached the assessee for recovery she became aware of the demand and, thereafter, the appeals were filed. In the light of the facts which have been canvassed before us, we consider it an appropriate case where ends of justice will be served by condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for hearing. Further considering the facts as deposed on oath, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice require giving assessee an opportunity to make her submissions on merits. 7. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the AO to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and, thereupon to conclude the assessment proceedings. Needless to say that in given ITAs No.18 & 19/Del/2018 Ritu Saxena vs. ITO 4 facts and circumstances the AO should invoke and use all the powers under law to investigate and verify the facts of forgery as narrated by the assessee in her affidavit. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th November, 2024. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "