Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S R.R. Energy Ltd. 60 Taxc/6/2019 ... on 25 June, 2019
(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.