ROOP NARAYAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 4, JPR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 863/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 September 2026AY 2012-1310 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the tax consultant's mistake. It held that the assessee, acting solely as a Power of Attorney holder for his mother who was the absolute owner, was not liable for the capital gains as he had no dominion over the sale proceeds.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay, attributed to the negligence of his tax consultant. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and added long-term capital gains, treating the assessee as the deemed owner of a property sold by his mother, despite the assessee acting only as a Power of Attorney holder.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, as a Power of Attorney holder, is liable for capital gains on a property owned by his mother. Whether the assessment proceedings were valid and just given the facts and documents on record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

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: 863/JPR/2026 Assessment year 2012-13

Roop Narayan Choudhary DCIT, A-26, Govind Nagar, Near Circle-4, Vs Heera Pura Power Station, Jaipur. Ajmer Road, Jaipur. (Respondent) PAN: AATPC8671L (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv. 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, Roop Narayan Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] qua assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the invalid and illegal action of the Ld. AO without hearing of assessee appellant hence violation of principle of natural justice and 'audi alteram partem'.

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Roon Narayan Choudhary

2.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CITA(A) grossly erred in confirming the invalid and illegal action of Ld. AO while complete assessment proceeding is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and barred by limitation hence may kindly be quashed.

3.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 28,83,274/ on account of alleged Long Term Capital gain, during the year without evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense,

4.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in confirming the addition on account of long term capital gain without having any corroborative material on record against the complete valid chain of documents as submitted by the assesse,

5.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in confirming the action of Ld AO for charging Interest U/s 134A, B and C of the act,

6.

The appellant reserved her right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing.”

2.

At the very outset, Ld. AR for the assessee by moving an application sought to condone the delay of 765 days in filing the present appeal supporting with an affidavit of Shri Ankit Gupta Tax practitioner on the grounds inter alia that assessee had challenged assessment order before Ld. CIT(A), who has decided the same ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2013 and appeal was required to be filed within 60 days i.e. on 12.02.2024; that assessee has received communication of order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 25.03.2026 through his Tax Consultant handling the matter that email ID i.e.

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Roon Narayan Choudhary

tambiashokassociates2@gmail.com registered with Income Tax portal belongs to the assessee’s Tax Consultant and the assessee was entirely dependent upon his professional; that immediately on receipt of information from his tax consultant, he has filed the appeal. 3. However on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the application on the ground that when assessee has not appeared before Ld. CIT(A) despite different notices issued to him. He has not entitled for any relief to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. We are of the considered view that in the totality of the circumstances in which assessee being agriculturist was not aware of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), even email of his tax consultant was with the income tax department on which impugned order communicated, it is proved on record that the entire delay was caused due to mistake or negligence on the part of tax consultant of the assessee, who was hired to render the legal services. At the same time, it is settled principle of law that due to negligence or mistake of the tax consultant, assessee cannot be made to suffer, who has otherwise entitled to be heard on merits. So in order to do substantial justice provisions for condonation of delay are required to be given liberal interpretation.

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Roon Narayan Choudhary

5.

Moreover in the instant case, tax consultant himself filed an affidavit making confession that due to his mistake, he could not pass on the impugned order to the assessee as he has not visited his office. No doubt digital technology is for the benefit of public at large but large population of India is still ignorant about the documents sent on email ID, rather they are entirely dependent upon their tax consultant. In these circumstances, we find it “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 765 days in filing the present appeal, hence condoned. The appeal is being heard on merits. 6. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issue at hand are: Assessee filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 at the total income of Rs. 12,64,270/-. Thereafter case was reopened, assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) at total income of Rs. 41,34,140/-. Again assessment was reopened by initiating proceedings u/s 147of the Act on the ground that during the year under consideration the assessee has entered into a transaction of immovable property and there is difference between sale amount and stamp duty amount tabulated as under:- Sales amount Stamp duty amount Difference value 8,00,000 18,27292 10,27,292 7,00,000 17,65,982 17,65,982

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Roon Narayan Choudhary

7.

When the return of income of the assessee was examined, the assessee has not shown transaction recorded in the above table in his return of income, thus the income of Rs. 35,93,274/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act filed return of income on 31.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 12,64,270/-. Thereafter assessee has not filed any response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act nor put in appearance in person or though his representative. Consequently, Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment on the basis of material available on record. The Assessing Officer by declaring assessee as deemed owner of the land has gained capital gain and thereby added an amount of Rs. 28,83,274/- to the total income of the assessee under the head LTCG. 8. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has dismissed the appeal for want of persecution on failure of the assessee to appear before him despite availing off numerous opportunities. 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. 9. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file.

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Roon Narayan Choudhary

10.

Undisputedly, Assessing Officer has reopened assessment second time for the reasons that assessee has failed to show the transaction entered into by him for purchase of land for consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- having stamp duty value of Rs. 18,27,292/-, thus income of Rs. 35,93,274/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition of Rs. 28,83,274/- by declaring the assessee as deemed owner and thereby calculated the capital gain after giving due benefit of indexation of the purchase cost as under:- “Value under 50C (taken by stamp authority) Rs. 35,93,274/- Less, Index cost 1. Purchase cost F.Y. 2004-05 4,00,000/480*852 Rs. 7,10,000/- Rs. 28,83,274/- As calculated above Rs. 28,83,274/- is added back to the total income of the assessee under the head of LTCG”

11.

Ld. AR for the assessee has not pressed the legal ground for reopening, however contested the impugned order on merits. No doubt, Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits, but merely passed the order ex-parte for want of prosecution on the part of the assessee, however the Bench has deemed it fit to decide this appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record with the assistance of Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue as grave injustice has

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 7 Roon Narayan Choudhary

been done to the assessee at the assessment proceedings as well as at the stage of first appellate proceedings. 12. Undisputedly, Smt. Bhuri Devi, mother of the assessee was absolute owner of the property in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.01.2025 available at page 43 to 52 of the paper book. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Bhuri Devi being absolute owner of the property in question executed power of Attorney qua the land in question in favour of the assessee on 10.12.2018. It is also not in dispute that assessee being Attorney of his mother Smt. Bhuri Devi executed a sale deed dated 12.05.2011 in favour of Smt. Jhuman Devi and one Mr. Siddharth Narayan Choudhary wife and son of the assessee respectively. Both the sale deeds are available at page 23 to 42 of the paper book. 13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the sole question arises determination in this case is “as to whether the assessee, Sh. Roop Narayan Choudhary being Attorney of Sh. Jhuman Devi has become the owner of the sale proceeds and as such liable to pay the capital gain”. 14. Bare perusal of the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in paras 3.1 to 3.4 goes to prove that entire findings have been returned by the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) are on the basis of whims and fancies by

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 8 Roon Narayan Choudhary

ignoring the law and facts on the file for facility of reference finding of return by AO are extracted as under:- “3.1 As evident from the above, all transactions are done in cash mode. Therefore no proof is available with the assessee in support of his contention that the entire amount has given/transferred to Smt. Bhuri devi, mother of the assessee. It is also possible that the assessee misguide the department knowing that no remedial action will be taken at this stage in the case of Smt. Bhuri Devi. 3.2 It is also no doubt that the transaction made by the assessee on behalf of his mother i.e being a power of attorney holder but in absence of proof it is not possible to consider the entire amount has been transfer in the hand of his mother. 3.3 Mother of the assessee Smt. Bhuri Devi has purchased the said plot on 25.01.2005 at Rs. 4,00,000/- and as per sale deed, occupation of Smt. Bhuri Devi is House Wife. Hence it is clear that there is no source of income of his mother. Therefore, investment for purchased of land of Rs. 4,00,000/- was done by the assessee. He was deemed owner of the land. Further, the said land is sold to (1) Smt. Jhuma Devi W/o Sh. Roop Narayan Choudhary (ii) Sh. Siddharth Narayan Chou Thary S/o Sh. Roop Narayan Choudhary i.e family member of the assessee. 3.4 Considering the above facts, as deemed owner of the land was the assessee, capital gain is hereby calculated in the hand of the assessee after giving due benefit of indexation of purchase of cost.

Value under 50C (taken by stamp authority) Rs. 35,93,274/- Less, Index cost 1. Purchase cost F.Y. 2004-05 4,00,000/480*852 Rs. 7,10,000/- Rs. 28,83,274/- As calculated above Rs. 28,83,274/- is added back to the total income of the assessee under the head of LTCG”

15.

When the assessee has merely acted as Attorney of his mother Smt. Bhuri Devi, who was absolute owner of the land in question, he had no dominion over the sale proceeds of the land in question. The

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 9 Roon Narayan Choudhary

Assessing Officer has proceeded to decide the issue as Civil Court by holding that Smt. Bhuri Devi being a house hold lady had no source of income. These findings returned at the back of Smt. Bhuri Devi that how she has invested amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-in purchasing the property. The AO further proceeded to hold that assessee is deemed owner of the land in question. We fail to understand in the face of registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Bhuri Devi how the assessee can be declared as deemed owner of the property in question. 16. The Assessing Officer instead of examining the case of Smt. Bhuri Devi and subsequent owner namely Smt. Jhuman Devi and Sh. Siddharth Narayan Chouldary, who have purchased the land in question proceeded to hold the assessee as deemed owner and made addition of Rs. 28,83,274/- under the head long term capital gain. 17. Despite having all the documents available on record, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reopen assessment second time and has not preferred to receive the reply of the assessee, but proceeded to declare the assessee as deemed owner of the property in question just to justify his initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. We are of the considered view that the assessee being Attorney of Smt. Bhuri Devi owner of the property is not liable to pay any long term capital gain as he had no dominion over the sale proceeds of the property in question.

I.T.A No. 863/JPR/2026 Page No 10 Roon Narayan Choudhary

18.

All these facts were available on record, but Ld. CIT(A) has not preferred to dispose of the appeal on merits. In the interest of justice the Bench has not preferred to remand the appeal back to Ld. CIT(A) rather decided the same on merits on the basis of ample material available on record. 19. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that addition made by AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. 20. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →