ITO, ROHTAK vs. SH. VIDYA BHUSHAN JUNEJA, ROHTAK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.3545/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11)

Smt. Sudarshan Juneja Income Tax Officer Vs. [Legal heir of (Late) Mr. Vidya Rohtak Bhusan Juneja] H. No.17/643 Arya Nagar, Rohtak PAN-ABWPJ 9258J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Beenu, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) Respondent by None ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM:

(A) This appeal was originally filed by Revenue against

impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for

short], for Assessment Year 2010-11 in respect of Mr. Vidya

Bhushan Juneja (now deceased). Subsequently, Revenue has

Page 1 of 3

ITA No.3545 /Del/2014 ITO vs. Smt. Sudarshan Juneja brought Smt. Sudarshan Juneja, widow of (Late) Mr. Vidya Bhusan

Juneja, on record as the respondent.

(A.1) Assessment Order dated 22/03/2013 was passed

by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) wherein income was

determined at Rs.1,76,02,309/- (rounded off to Rs.1,76,02,310/-),

as against returned income of Rs.4,40,710/-. The appeal filed by

the assessee against the aforesaid assessment order was allowed

by the Ld. CIT(A), vide the aforesaid impugned appellate order

dated 21/03/2014.

(B) At the time of hearing before us, the Respondent, Smt.

Sudarshan Juneja, legal heir of (Late) Mr. Vidya Bhushan Juneja;

was represented by none. In the absence of any representation

from the respondent, we heard the Ld. SR. DR for Appellant

(Revenue). She relied on the assessment order. However, she was

unable to point out any mistake or error in the impugned appellate

order dated 21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). She was also unable to

bring forth any facts and circumstances or legal provision or

decided precedents for our consideration to persuade us to

interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of

Page 2 of 3

ITA No.3545 /Del/2014 ITO vs. Smt. Sudarshan Juneja the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Appellant Revenue has failed to make a

case for any interference with the impugned appellate order dated

21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), and also because Revenue has failed

to point out any mistake or error either on facts and circumstances

of the case or in law, we decline to interfere with the impugned

appellate order dated 21/03/2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in

view of the foregoing; and in the specific facts and circumstances of

the case, this appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

(C) In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 28/10/2022

/- Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/10/2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI

Page 3 of 3