Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Ms. Surabhi Bishnoi, D-1028, New Friends Colony, New Delhi VS. ITO, WARD 22(2), CR BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI
November, 10th 2014
                                                           ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013


                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI
             BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                  AND
                 SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


                         I.T.A. No. 2997/DEL/2013
                                A.Y. : 2008-09
Ms. Surabhi Bishnoi,             VS.                  ITO, WARD 22(2),
D-1028,         New                                   CR BUILDING,
Friends Colony,                                       IP ESTATE,
New Delhi                                             NEW DELHI
(PAN: ALKPB7807R)
(APPELLANT)                                           (RESPONDENT)

         Assessee by                   :    Sh. Arun Kishore, CA
        Department by                  :    Sh. BRR Kumar, Sr. D.R.


                      Date of Hearing : 03-11-2014
                      Date of Order        : 03-11-2014
                             ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
     This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of

the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi

dated 14.2.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.


2.   The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-


          "1.     That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the

                  Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal.


          2(i)    That on the last date of hearing on 13.2.2013, the

                  Appellant's Adjournment application was summarily


                                      1
                                                  ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013


        dismissed and returned without looking into the

        merits of the case.


(ii)    That the counsel of the appellant had to undergo

        tests   including   MRI    Brain    and    ear    scan     on

        13.2.2013, as such a request for adjournment was

        made.





(iii)   That reasonable opportunity of being heard was not

        provided by the first Appellate Authority as such the

        present appeal be restored back t the file of CIT(A).


3.(i) That without prejudice to             above contentions

        addition of Rs. 24,50,000/- made on assumption be

        deleted.


 (ii) That      the   evidence    filed   has   been     summarily

        rejected on flimsy grounds.


4.      That without prejudice to above contentions, the

        addition of Rs. 1,71,929/- erroneously made as

        short term capital gain be deleted.


5.      That without    prejudice to above contentions, the

        assessment order is barred by limitation, since

        served upon the assessee after 31st December,

        2010.


                            2
                                                      ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013


           6.   That the net income of the appellant be reduced to

                Rs. 26,21,929/-."


3.   The facts of the case are not in dispute by both the parties,
therefore, need not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4.   At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that
the lower authorities have not given sufficient opportunity to the
assessee for substantiating her claim before the Ld. First Appellate
Authority and has wrongly decided the issues in dispute against the
assesse. He further submitted that Ld. Counsel of the assessee had
undergone the Diagnostic Tests including MRI Brain and Ear Scan on
the date when the Ld. First Appellate Authority has fixed the appeal
for hearing before him. But assessee has requested for adjournment
by mentioning these reasons before the Ld. CIT(A). But, Ld. CIT(A)
has not accepted the reasons of the assessee and decide the issues
in dispute against the assessee, which is contrary to the principles
of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that he
himself appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and disclosed all these facts
before him. But the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same and
decide the issues in dispute against the assessee.             He only
requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the Ld.
CIT(A) to decide the same after providing sufficient opportunity to
the assessee.

5.   On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee
and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

6.   We have heard both the parties and perused the record

available with us especially the orders passed by the revenue

authorities. Sh. Arun Kishore, CA, (Authorized Representative) of the


                                    3
                                                     ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013


assessee himself appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and requested for

short adjournment on medical grounds, but the same request has

been rejected by the Ld. First Appellate Authority and decide the

issue against the assessee.      In our considered opinion,         that

arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are very

plausible, therefore, we accept the same by cancelling the

impugned order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. We are

of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected the request of the

assessee and passed the impugned order against the principles of

natural justice. Sh. Arun Kishore, Ld. CA (Authorised Representative)

of the assessee has himself appeared before us and made a

statement that he had undergone Diagnostic Tests including MRI

Brain and Ear Scan on the date when the Ld. First Appellate

Authority has fixed the appeal for hearing before him, but the Ld.

CIT(A) has not accepted the request of the assessee and pass the

impugned order dated 14.2.2013.       In our considered opinion, Ld.

CIT(A) should believe the statement of Ld. Counsel for the assessee

and examine the adjournment matter and accordingly fix the case

on the next suitable date.   We are also   of the view that assessee

should not suffer due to medical treatment viz. getting Diagnostic

Tests including MRI Brain and Ear Scan of the Ld. Counsel of the

assessee, which are very much essential for the health of the ld.

Counsel of the assessee. Hence, in our opinion, the impugned order





                                  4
                                                     ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013


passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the principles of       natural

justice and therefore, we cancel the same and setting the aside the

issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to

decide the same afresh under the law, after giving full opportunity

to the assessee.


 6.   In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed
for statistical purposes.

      Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/11/2014, upon
conclusion of hearing.

      Sd/-                                             Sd/-

[T.S. KAPOOR]                                     [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 03/11/2014
"SRBHATNAGAR"
Copy forwarded to: -
1.    Appellant -
2.    Respondent -
3.    CIT
4.    CIT (A)
5.    DR, ITAT


                            TRUE COPY
                                                  By Order,




                                                 Assistant Registrar,
                                                 ITAT, Delhi Benches




                                  5
    ITA NO. 2997/Del/2013




6

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions