Case Number: ITA 1512/DEL/2019
Appellant: Vandana Bhagat, Gurugram
Respondent: ITO, Ward-11(4), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Result: 2013-14
Case Filed On: 2019-02-22
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2020-02-06
Pronounced On: 2020-02-06
Bench: Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi
Member: Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member
This case involves the appeal filed by Vandana Bhagat, Gurugram against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 43,00,000 to the returned income, which the appellant claimed to have received from her husband.
During the assessment year 2013-14, Vandana Bhagat received a sum of Rs. 43,00,000 in her bank account from her husband, Shri Hemant Bhagat. The bank statement of her husband from Indian Overseas Bank (account number 143602000010253) was furnished during the scrutiny proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider it and added the amount to the returned income.
The appellant contended that this amount was indeed received from her husband and furnished supporting documents, including the bank account statement, ledger balance confirmation, PAN card copy, and ITR of her husband. Despite this, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-representation, as the appellant did not receive any notices for the hearing.
The appellant challenged the order on several grounds, including the following:
During the hearing on 05/02/2020, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Vipul Gupta, requested the Tribunal to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, stating that the appellant did not receive notices for the initial hearings. The Senior Departmental Representative (DR), Ms. Rinku Singh, did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-representation and noted that the order was not in accordance with the statutory requirements of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the case afresh, giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and instructed the appellant to make full and proper representation during the proceedings. It also granted the CIT(A) the liberty to decide the issue based on available material if the appellant failed to comply.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal ordered that the appeal be allowed for statistical purposes and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the appeal of Vandana Bhagat was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, providing the appellant an opportunity to present her case adequately.
Decision: Appeal allowed for statistical purposes and remanded back to CIT(A).
Signed by: Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member
Date: 06/02/2020
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform