ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. MUKTA KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4720/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 November 2015AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing a consolidated appeal against separate orders is not maintainable in law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as defective.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a consolidated appeal before the ITAT against a consolidated order of the CIT(A) which dealt with separate assessment and penalty orders. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether a consolidated appeal can be filed against multiple separate orders. Whether the ITAT can entertain a defective appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: DR Assessee by : None Present
Hearing: 201

Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 17-11111111-201 Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 201 2015 201 Date of Order : Date of Order : 18 Date of Order : Date of Order : 18 18-11111111-201 18 201 2015 201

ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER H.S. SIDHU PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : JM H.S. SIDHU 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 following grounds:-

“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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →