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: cpt :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
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)

Smt. Veermati, C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Vs. ITO, Baraut
August, 05th 2015
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    DELHI BENCH: `SMC-2' NEW DELHI

                BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                            I.T.A .No.-4619/Del/2014
                         (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10)
         Smt. Veermati,                            vs ITO,
         C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary           Baraut
         Road, Civil Lines, Meerut.
         BJAPS3629B
                                          &
                              I.T.A .No.-4620/Del/2014
                         (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10)
         Hari Singh Verma,                         vs ITO,
         C/o Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary           Baraut
         Road, Civil Lines, Meerut.
         BJAPS3629B
                  Appellant by       Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv.
                  Respondent by Sh. Sudhiranjan Senapati, Sr. DR

                            Date of Hearing: 03.08.2015
                         Date of Pronouncement: 04.08.2015

                                         ORDER

        Both the assessees have filed the present appeal against the different
impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 18/03/2014 in ITA No.
4619/D/2014 & order dated 14/03/2014 in ITA No. 4620/D/2014 for assessment
year 2009-10.
2.      For the sake of convenience the grounds raised in ITA No. 4619/D/14 in the
case of Smt. Veermati for A.Y. 2009-10 & in ITA No. 4620/D/14 in the case of Sh.
Hari Singh Verma for A.Y. 2009-10 are read as under:
ITA No. 4619/Del/2014 : Smt. Veermati vs. ITO, Baraut : A.Y. 2009-10:
        1. "That the assessee's husband was died in 2010 and similar addition was made
           in the case of Smt. Veermati L/H of [Late] Sh. Hari Singh Verma. The both the
           additions were made on substantial basis in both the case therefore same
                                            2              I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014

           income cannot be assessed in both the cases. Hence, the CIT(A) is in error in
           confirming the same without going through the details of the case.
        2. That on 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 no CIT(A) was present to heard the appeal as
           he was transferred as CIT, Administration, Meerut and on 17.02.2014 &
           14.03.2014 the assessee seek adjournment but CIT(A) was not present. Hence,
           order passed by CIT(A) Meerut on 14.03.2014 as ex parte order is against the
           facts and law and against the principle of natural justice.
        3. That order passed by CIT(A) & AO is not decided on merits hence, confirmation
           of CIT(A) ex parte is bad in law."




ITA No. 4620/Del/2014 : Sh. Hari Singh Verma vs. ITO, Baraut : A.Y. 2009-10:
        1. "That the assessee was died in 2010 and similar addition was made in the case
           of Smt. Veermati L/H of [Late] Sh. Hari Singh Verma. The both the additions
           were made on substantial basis in both the case therefore same income cannot
           be assessed in both the cases. Hence, the CIT(A) is in error in confirming the
           same without going through the details of the case.
        2. That on 13.12.2013 & 17.01.2014 no CIT(A) was present to heard the appeal as
           he was transferred as CIT, Administration, Meerut and on 17.02.2014 &
           14.03.2014 the assessee seek adjournment but CIT(A) was not present. Hence,
           order passed by CIT(A) Meerut on 14.03.2014 as ex parte order is against the
           facts and law and against the principle of natural justice.
        3. That order passed by CIT(A) & AO is not decided on merits hence, confirmation
           of CIT(A) ex parte is bad in law."

3.      I have heard the both appeals together because issue in dispute in both
appeals are identical. Therefore, for the sake of convenience I am disposing these
two appeals by passing one consolidated order.
4.      The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by the both
parties. Therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.
5.      At the time of hearing ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. First
appellate authority has passed the impugned order contrary to the law and facts on
the file and against the principle of natural justice. He further stated that the AO as
well as the ld. First appellate authority has not given proper opportunity to the
assessee for substantiating their claim before them. He drew my attention towards
the order passed by the revenue authorities. He requested that the appeal filed by
                                               3               I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014

the assessee may be accepted and the order passed by the revenue authorities may
be cancelled.
6.      On the contrary, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the ld. First
appellate authority and stated that ld. CIT(Appeals), Meerut has given sufficient
opportunity to the assessee for substantiating their claim before him but the
assessee has not availed the opportunity and the ld. First appellate authority has
decided the case of the assessee under the law. He requested that appeal filed by
the assessee may be dismissed.
7.      I have heard the both parties perused the relevant record available with
me. After perusing the orders passed by the revenue authorities I am of the view
that the AO has made the addition in dispute on the basis of evidence available with
him and the ld. First appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-
parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. First appellate
authority has passed almost identical impugned orders. For the sake of convenience
I am reproducing the order passed in the case of Smt. Veermati W/o Hari Singh
Verma in ITA No. 4619/D/2014 as under:
         "Appellate order and grounds of decision u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961
                 The present appeal is directed against the order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act
        dated 28.12.2011 passed by ITO, Baraut. In compliance to notices u/s 250 of the
        Act, none appeared.
        2.       Following dates of hearing were allowed to the appellant:
        Date of issue of               Date      fixed    for         Remarks
        notice                         hearing/adjourned
                                       date
        24.12.2013                     09.01.2014                     No compliance
        10.02.2014                     24.02.2014                     No compliance
        27.02.2014                     18.03.2014                     Adjournment
                                                                      application       was
                                                                      received            on
                                                                      14.03.2014
        3.       From the above it is evident that more than sufficient opportunities of
        being heard have been allowed to the appellant. However, on all the dates fixed
        for heairng, the appellant eithr has not made any compliance or filed adjournment
        applications. This implies that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the
                                                  4              I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014

           appeal for the reasons best known to him. Since, sufficient opportunity being
           heard have been given to the appellant, no further adjournment can be granted.
           Therefore, the appela is disposed off on the basis of material evidence on the
           record.
4. Since the appellant has not furnished any details and evidences against the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore, in the absence of the same, it is held that the AO was justified in making additions. The same are hereby confirmed. Grounds of appeal are dismissed." 8. After going through the aforesaid order passed by the ld. First appellate authority which is identical in both the appeals I am of the considered view that ld. First appellate authority has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating their claim before them and decided the issue in dispute against the assessee in a hurry manner. 9. In the interest of justice, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the ld. First appellate authority to decide the same afresh under the law after giving full opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04/08/2015 Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04/08/2015 *Kavita, P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 I.T.A .Nos.-4619 & 4620/Del/2014 Sl. Description Date No. 1. Date of dictation by the Author 03.08.2015 2. Draft placed before the Dictating Member 04.08.2015 3. Draft placed before the Second Member 04.08.2015 4. Draft approved by the Second Member 04.08.2015 5. Date of approved order comes to the Sr. PS 04.08.2015 6. Date of pronouncement of order 04.08.2015 7. Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk 04.08.2015 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date of dispatch of order
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

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