RATAN DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JPR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 135/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Ratan Devi The ITO, 1299, Sikariyon Ki Mori Ward-5(2), Vs Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur PAN: ARUPS6207Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Nilhilesh Kataria,C.A. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Namita Patel, JCIT Date of hearing : 19-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 03-09-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Ratan Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1.1 The order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as well as on the facts of the present case for lack of jurisdiction and other reasons and hence the same may please be quashed.

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Ratan Devi

1.2 The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for want of jurisdiction and other various reasons and hence the consequent assessment is also bad in law and Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue and hence the consequent assessment may please be quashed

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Ratan Devi

otherwise dated 31.10.2025. From the affidavit filed by the assessee which has not been controverted by the Revenue department it has come on record that assessee got message only on 03.11.2025 on her mobile phone and thereafter she got the impugned order downloaded through her counsel. No communication either by way of mail or through physical mode is brought on record by the Revenue department. So in view of the matter, we find it a “sufficient cause” that the assessee has only got information on receipt of message about the impugned order and immediately filed the appeal and in these circumstances the delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned and appeal is being heard on merits. 3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Assessing Officer noticed from the record that assessee purchased immovable property for a sale of consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- during A.Y. 2013-14. Assessee’s return of income was examined, which was showing total income at Rs. 2,04,560/-, which was much lower than the investment made by the assessee for purchasing of immovable property for Rs. 57,76,133/-.The Assessing Officer treated the same

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Ratan Devi

as undisclosed income and initiated proceedings u/s 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”), order u/s 148A(d) was passed. Notice 148 of the Act was issued. Despite giving numerous opportunities the assessee failed to appear in person or through his representative. On the basis of material available with the Assessing Officer, he has proceeded to make addition of Rs. 57,57,133/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the appeal in limine by dismissing application moved by the assessee for condonation of delay of 187 days. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), which is running into 17 pages it is transpired that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal by the

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Ratan Devi

assessee before him why not finding “sufficient cause” as canvassed by the assessee. 7. We have perused the application moved by the assessee for before Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay of 187 days in the filing the appeal raising grounds inter alia that assessee is an illterate person; that email ID of her tax consultant was updated in the profile of the assessee when income tax proceedings were initiated; that tax consultant engaged by the assessee was not keeping well; that due to ill health of tax consultant, notices being sent on his mail were not being checked and as such no communication of any proceedings was made by consultant to the assessee; that the assessee was not aware of an such notices updated on the email ID her tax consultant nor she was having any information of the proceedings that tax consultant Shri Yogendra Jha never updated on the reassessment proceedings; that assessment order was never served physically on the assessee; that Shri Yogendra Jha tax consultant, who was not keeping well for long time died on 26.07.2022; that thereafter assessee engaged new consultant, who also take time to collect the documents and updating email ID and filed the appeal with the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal.

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Ratan Devi

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 7 Ratan Devi

2008 dated 26.06.2010, liberal view is required to be taken to impart substantial justice and right to be heard cannot be denied on the basis of technicalities. Moreover illiterate assessee cannot be expected to come up for getting relief by applying rule with “clinical precision”. 10. So far as question of issuing notice to the assessee through speed post as contended by the Ld. DR for the Revenue is concerned, in the absence of any postal receipt, because many letters are being issued by the department on daily basis and possibility of same address on different assessee cannot be ruled out and its benefit needs to be given to the assessee in the interest of justice. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that we find “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), hence order rejecting the application for condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. 12. Perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) show that when assessee has failed to represent her case before Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A),

I.T.A No. 135/JPR/2026 Page No 8 Ratan Devi

opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing her appeal in limine. So we deem it fit to remand this case back to Ld. CIT(A), who shall decide the same on merits afresh by calling remand report if need be, by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 03/09/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar