What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the Revenue failed to point out any mistakes or errors in the order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Assessing Officer determined the income at Rs. 1,76,02,309/- against a returned income of Rs. 4,40,710/-. The assessee's appeal against this assessment order was allowed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue presented sufficient grounds to challenge the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal.

ITO vs Sh. Vidya Bhushan Juneja, Rohtak | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Beenu, Senior Departmental

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 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 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.

Order pronounced on 28/10/2022

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

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments