Mamta Anand, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 329/DEL/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 32920114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ACBPA3117H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 329/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Mamta Anand, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 23-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 23-03-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 329/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 MAMTA ANAND CD-46E G 8 AREA RAJOURI GARDEN GHANTA GHAR NEW DELHI 110 064 ACBPA3117H VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-44(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. BANITA DEVI NARAON SR. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28 TH JULY 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06. THE APPEAL WAS PRESENTED ON 19 TH JANUARY 2011. IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CUM- NOTICE ASSESSEE WAS APPRISED THAT HER APPEAL WOULD BE HEARD ON 23 RD MARCH 2011. IT APPEARS FROM THE NOTING ON THIS ACKNOWLEDG EMENT-CUM-NOTICE THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY SHRI KUNDAN KUMAR SRIVASTA VA WHO IS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND POWER OF ATTORNE Y EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSES IN HIS FAVOUR IS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. HOWEVER INSPITE OF TAKING ITA NO. 329/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 2 NOTE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING NO ONE HAS COME PR ESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR WE HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTY QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 137 DAYS. IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IT IS PLE ADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON 4 TH AUGUST 2010. PAPERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE COUNSEL AND SHE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSIO N THAT APPEAL COULD BE FILED WITHIN THE LIMITATION WHICH WAS AVAILABLE UPT O 4 TH OCTOBER 2010. SHE APPROACHED THE COUNSEL FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE AP PEAL BECAUSE AO WAS PRESSING FOR THE DEMAND ONLY THEN SHE CAME TO KNOW THAT HER APPEAL REMAINED UNFILLED BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE STAFF IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL. SHE FUR THER CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL. SHE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN SALES TAX REVISION NO. 888 TO 1987. SHE PLACED ON R ECORD COPY OF THE ORDER AND PLEADED THAT NEGLIGENCE AT THE END OF TAX CONSU LTANT COULD BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES WE ARE SATISFIED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY THAT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME BECAUSE OF BONAFIDE MISTA KE OCCURRED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TAX CONSULTANT. THERE IS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT AT THE END OF ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING HER APPEAL WELL IN TIME. BECAUSE BY NOT SUBMITTING THE APPEAL WITHIN ITA NO. 329/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 3 THE LIMITATION SHE IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY BENEFIT . THEREFORE WE ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE APPEAL. 4. ON MERIT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT RULES. THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. SHE HAS PLEADED THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME AT ` 3 23 774/-. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING A CREDIT CARD FROM HS BC LIMITED. SHE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF ` 3 23 774/- THROUGH THE CREDIT CARD. ACCORDING TO TH E AO IN PURSUANCE TO 1/6 SCHEME OF FILING OF RETURN APPLICA BLE DURING THIS ASSTT. YEAR IT CAME TO HIS NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FU RNISH THE RETURN BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT. HE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW WHETHER SHE HAS FILED ANY RETURN IN CASE SHE FAILED TO FILE ANY RETURN THEN SUBMIT THE RETURN FOR THIS ASSTT. YEAR. AO HAS HELD THAT INSPITE OF NOTICES SENT TO ASSESSEE SHE DID NOT BOTHER TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE OR SUBMITTED ANY REPLY TO THE NOTICES. HE TREATED THE EXPENSES INCURRED TH ROUGH THE CREDIT CARD AS UNEXPLAINED AND DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AT ` 3 23 774/-. THE TAX LIABILITY OF ` 1 27 452/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT. 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ACTION OF AO ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE DISPUTE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON A NUMBER OF DATES FOR HEARING BUT THE TAX CONSULTANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT F OR THE ONE OR THE OTHER REASON. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FAILE D TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OR ITA NO. 329/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 4 ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF HER APPEAL. HE CONCUR WI TH THE FINDING OF AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. BEFORE US ALONGWITH THE APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN SHE HAS SUBMITTED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE R ETURN FILED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 AND 2004-05. SHE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE D ETAILS INDICATING THE FACTS THAT SHE IS A REGULAR ASSESSEE HAVING PERMANE NT ACCOUNT NUMBER I.E. ACBPA3117H. SHE HAS FILED HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THESE ASSTT. YEARS AND ALSO ALLEGED THAT SHE IS WORKING IN VIKRAM OVER SEAS LTD. SHE HAS A SALARY INCOME. THE SALARY INCOME AT ` 97 580/- WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05. SHE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED FROM THE CREDIT CARD. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE THE CREDIT CARE ACCOUNT IS IN JOINT NAME THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRE D BY HER AS WELL AS HER HUSBAND. HER SHARE OF EXPENSES IS ONLY ` 35 532/- WHEREAS HER HUSBAND HAS INCURRED ` 2 83 567/-. SHE HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF THESE EXP ENSES. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GONE THROUGH THE ASSTT. ORDER. THE AO HAD ISSUED FI RST NOTICE ON 27.11.2007. ACCORDING TO HIM THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH SPE ED POST AND HE PRESUMED THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. HE PASSED THE ASSTT. ORDER O N 31 ST DECEMBER 2007 I.E. JUST WITHIN ONE AND A HALF MONTH AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. THE AO DID NOT EXPLORE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY ALTERNATIVE MODE I .E. AFFIXTURE. HE SHOULD HAVE STARTED THE INVESTIGATION AT AN EARLY DATE. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVA IL THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. TO ITA NO. 329/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 5 SOME EXTENT WE FEEL THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO NEGLIGEN T IN CONDUCTING HER INCOME TAX PROCEEDING. SHE SHOULD HAVE FILED ALL THESE EVI DENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS SALARY INCOM E FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF THE EXPENSES AND EXPENSES WERE INCURRED JOINTLY BY HER AND HER HUSBAND THE ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE RE INVESTIGATE. W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ASSTT. ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2011. SD/- [B.C. MEENA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.3.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT