Income Tax Officer, Ward 46(2), Room No. 307, Civic Centre, d Block, 3rd Floor, Vs. Smt. Mukta Kapoor, R/o Flat No. A-63, Ayush Vihar, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi
November, 20th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "E", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 4720/DEL/2013
INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. MUKTA KAPOOR,
WARD 46(2), R/O FLAT NO. A-63, AYUSH
ROOM NO. 307, CIVIC CENTRE, VIHAR, SECTOR-13, DWARKA,
`D' BLOCK, 3 FLOOR, NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI 1
Department by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Assessee by : None Present
Date of Hearing : 17-11- 2015
Date of Order : 18- 2015
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
The Revenue has filed this appeal on 07.8.2013 against the consolidated
order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi on the
"1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 3111671/- as rightly made by the AO
on account of unexplained cash deposits which remained unexplained
and the addition was made on the basis of information in his possession:
2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 3111671/- made by the AD which
remained unexplained as the assessee could not explain the source of
cash deposits satisfactorily during the remand proceeding.
3. Treating the deposits in assessee's bank account as business
receipts and applying a rate of 5% of the turnover u/s 44AF of the I.T. Act
without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not filed any
documentary evidence of business income and has throughout submitted
that she was a salaried person.
4. Deleting the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs. 1062534/- as
rightly imposed by the AO without considering the fact that the assessee
did not avail opportunities to submit its version both at the time of scrutiny
and penalty proceedings:
"The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the groin
us of appeal."
2. At the time of hearing, we noticed that Assessee has filed 3 Appeals being
Appeal Nos. 1171/11-12, 1177/12-13 & 1178/12-13 before the Ld. First Appellate
Authority against the Order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 144 of the I.T.
Act, 1961 and other orders passed u/s. 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,
1961 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Ld. CIT(A) has decided these
appeals vide his consolidated order dated 27.5.2013 by partly allowing the
appeal u/s. 144 and allowed other two appeals by deleting the penalty u/s.
271(1)(b) & 271(1)(c) in dispute.
3. Aggrieved by the consolidated order dated 27.5.2013, Revenue has filed
the present Appeal before the Tribunal.
4. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, we find that in spite of
the RPAD issued to the assessee two times, neither the assessee nor his
representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute. Therefore, we
decided to proceed exparte assessee.
4.1 We find that the Appeal filed by the Revenue is a `Defective' one,
because the Department has filed a combined Appeal before the Tribunal
against the Ld. CIT(A)'s consolidated order dated 27.5.2013 which were against
the separate assessment orders being dated 20.12.2010 passed u/s. 144 of
the I.T. Act, 1961 and other orders passed u/s. 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T.
Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09, which is not maintaninable in the
eyes of law. However, as per Rules, the Department ought to have filed
separate appeals before the Tribunal against the consolidated order of the Ld.
CIT(A). Therefore, the present Appeal has become `Defective' and is dismissed
as such. But in the interest of justice, the Department is at the liberty, if so
advised, can file separate appeals before the Tribunal, against the consolidated
order dated 27.5.2013, which will be entertained, as per Rules.
5. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18/11/2015.
[PRASHANT MAHARISHI] SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
ITAT, Delhi Benches