Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ito, Rohtak vs Sh. Vidya Bhushan Juneja, Rohtak on 28 October, 2022
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)
Income Tax Officer Smt. Sudarshan Juneja
Rohtak Vs. [Legal heir of (Late) Mr. Vidya
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