SMT. ANJU GAUTTAM,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Smt. Anju Gauttam Vs. ITO Kalani & Co LLP, Ward 2(1) Chartered Accountants, 5th Ajmer Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:CKQPS 1451 P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 26.08.2025 under

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information in the possession of the AO that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.17,11,000/-, while the DLC value taken by Sub-Registrar for stamp duty purposes was Rs.26,24,035/-. The difference as per the AO was taxable in the hands of the purchaser as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, and accordingly, noting the same, the AO reopened the case of the assessee, issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, assessment was framed, and addition was made to the income of the assessee both on account of the investment made in the immovable property, which was arrived at by including the cost of acquisition of the property, as well as the other charges paid with regard to stamp duty and stamp charges in cash, resulting in an addition of Rs.19,89,490/- comprising of Rs.17,11,000/- the purchase consideration of the property and Rs.2,78,490/- the other expenses incurred for purchase of property. Addition also was made of the difference between the stamp duty value of the property and the actual consideration paid by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and amounting to Rs.9,13,035/-(26,24,035-17,11,000). 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who noted the appeal to be delayed for filing by 111 days, and he did not condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by holding that no sufficient cause has been shown and thus dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee by not deciding the appeal on merit.

With reference to above, it is to submit that the appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT on 10.09.2025. However, the following legal ground was left to be taken:- "Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the approval obtained from PCIT instead of PCCIT for issue of notice u/s 148 is against the provisions of section 151 and thus the consequent order passed u/s 147 of the Act is illegal & bad in law."

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam The above ground is a legalground and all the facts are on record. Therefore, the same be admitted as an additional ground of appeal in view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 383 for imparting substantial justice to the applicant. 6. Before entering and dealing with any of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits or any legal ground raised, it is imperative to first deal with the ground raised by the assessee, challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before it. The assessee has raised the said issue in Ground No.1. 7. The order of Ld. CIT(A) reveals the reason stated by the assessee for delay to be as under:- 5.21 In the present case, there is a delay of approximately 111 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has acknowledged this delay in Form No. 35 and, in this regard, has stated as under: "The assessee being lady was not guided by her counsel during reassessment proceeding as well as to file appeal after completion of proceeding u/s 147. The assesee has enged new consel to guide and comply the department notices as well to file appeal. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed to kindly codone the delay in filing appeal." 8. The Ld. CIT(A), has found the reason so given by the assessee to not be sufficient cause for condoning the delay, holding at para 5.22 of his order as under:- 5.22 In the present case, there is a delay of approximately 111 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has acknowledged the delay in Form No. 35 and submitted that the delay occurred because she, being a lady, was not properly guided by her previous counsel during the reassessment proceedings as well as in filing the appeal after completion of proceedings under section 147. It is further stated that a new counsel has been engaged to guide her in complying with departmental notices and in filing the appeal. However, the appellant had a period of 30 days, as provided under the relevant provisions, to engage a new counsel and file the appeal. Moreover, the statement regarding change of counsel is a mere assertion and is not supported by any documentary evidence such as an authorization letter or communication showing appointment of the new counsel or any records reflecting lack of guidance by the earlier counsel. The explanation offered is

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam vague and does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that delay caused due to negligence, oversight, or lack of proper advice by counsel or the appellant cannot be condoned as sufficient cause. The appellant remains responsible for compliance with procedural timelines irrespective of any change or deficiency in legal representation. Further, the appellant has failed to furnish any credible documentary evidence supporting the alleged lack of guidance or engagement of new counsel. In light of the above and respectfully following the settled legal position as cited supra, the reason furnished does not constitute sufficient cause. 9. As is evident from a bare perusal of the above, the assessee had pleaded that the delay occurred on account of fact that, she was a lady, who had no professional assistance/ guidance either during assessment proceedings, norwhile filing the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). It was only subsequently, that she had engaged a new counsel and filed appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in the delay of 111 days in filing of the appeal. Basically, the assessee has pleaded being unaware of the technicalities of the legal proceedings, being a lady and not being guided and assisted by any Professional in the matter. The facts as noted in the assessment order, reveal that the assessee was a small taxpayer having filed return declaring income of Rs.3,15,290/- only. There is no history of the assessee on record before us, revealing that she had been subjected to any assessment proceedings in the past. Therefore, it is fair enough to believe that, being a small taxpayer and a lady and not guided by a Professional, she was unaware of the technicalities of law, which resulted in the delay in filing of present appeal before us.

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam 10. Further, we have noted that in the assessment framed in the hands of the assessee the addition made to her income is multiple times to that returned by the assessee. That while, the assessee had returned income of Rs.3 lakhs odd, the addition made to her income amounts in all approximately to Rs.30 lakhs, which is 10 times, the income returned by her. Courts have consistently held that, when technicalities of delay are pitted against the interest of justice, the interest of justice should prevail. Undoubtedly, if the assessee’s appeal is dismissed on account of delay it would result in the assessee being taxed on income multiple times to that returned by her without being given an opportunity of hearing at all. 11. Therefore, we hold that the assessee having adduced sufficient cause for delay and in the interest of justice, the assessee’s appeal needed to be entertained and the delay in the filing of the same needed to be condoned. 12. The Ld CIT(A)s finding that no sufficient cause for delay has been adduced by the assessee, we find is not correct. His contention that the explanation offered is vague is, we find unfair. The sufficiency of cause explaining the delay is to be adduced from all the surrounding facts and circumstances. As we have noted in the present case the assessee was a lady who was a small taxpayer, who had never been subjected to any dispute in tax matters, and considering all these surrounding facts and circumstances, it is fair enough and plausible to believe thatshe was not guided and assisted by any Professional in tax matters, and she was unaware of the technicalities of law, requiring the

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam appeals to be filed within a fixed time frame. The explanation of the assessee for the delay is to be considered in the backdrop of these facts, and not every assessee can be put on the same platform to hold that the explanation needs to be supported with evidence. 13. Therefore, the rejection of the Ld. CIT(A) of the explanation of the assessee is, we hold incorrect, and thedelay in the filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 14. Taking up the grounds raised by the assessee. 15. Ground No.2 relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.19,89,490/-on account of investment in the purchase of property of Rs.17,11,000/- and expenses incurred on registration thereof amounting to Rs.2,78,490/-, the source of which remained unexplained. 16. Orders of the Authorities below reveal that the assessee had explained the source of investment made in property to the tune of Rs.17,11,000/- as Date Particulars Source 15.12.2016 Gift from Sh. Ram Swaroop Rs.4,00,000/- 20.12.2016 Gift from Ms. Jyoti Sharma Rs.2,00,000/- 21.12.2016 FD Premature amount Rs.2,25,000/- 21.12.2016 FD Premature amount Rs.6,00,000/-

P a g e | 8 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam made payment of Rs.3 lakhs vide cheque No.000004 dated 07.11.2016 through Bank of Baroda Branch J.L.N. Hospital Marg Ajmer and Rs.14,11,000/- through cheque No.000001 dated 21.12.2016 through Andhra Bank M.K. Plaza, Nanad Vihar Jaipur-21. The copy of the Bank statement of the assessee of Bank of Baroda through which payment of Rs.3 lakhs was made for the purchase of land by the assessee and copy of which was placed before us at paper book page No.29-30 reveals amount received by RTGS and NEFT from Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam of Rs.2 lakh and Rs.1 lakh respectively on 07.11.2016 and 09.11.2016 respectively, which immediately thereafter was issued on 12.11.2016 to Anita Bora the seller of the land. Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam undisputedly, is the husband of the assessee whose return of income had also been filed by the assessee to the Authorities below reflecting income of Rs.10,53,962/- returned to tax for the impugned year. Copy of the return of income was placed before us at paper book page Nos. 34 to 37. 18. Considering the above, the assessee’s contention that she had received Rs.3 lakhs from her husband is clearly established from the facts on record itself. 19. The Authorities Below, we have noted, rejected the contention of the assessee for the reason that the assessee did not submit any document to prove the identity, creditworthiness of Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam and the genuineness therefore, remained not proved of the gift given by the husband to the assessee his wife.

P a g e | 9 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam 20. We do not find any merit in the findings of the Lower Authorities as aforestated. The bank statement of the assessee, we have noted clearly reflects Rs.3 lakhs received from Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam. The ITR of Ajay Kumar Gautam clearly establishes both his identity and also his creditworthiness having returned of Rs.10 lakhs odd for the impugned year. Therefore, the basis with the Revenue Authorities for rejecting assessee’s claim of investment in the impugned property to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs being sourced from gift received by the husband is rejected and we hold that the assessee has sufficiently explained and duly substantiated with the evidence, the source of investment to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs as emanating from the gift received from her husband Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam. The addition made to the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs is accordingly deleted. 21. The remaining amount of Rs.14,11,000/- as per the sale deed was paid by the assessee from her Andhra Bank account, copy of which was placed before us at paper book page No.31 to 33 and was there before the Lower Authorities also. The same reveals that immediately before the payment of Rs.14.11 lakhs was made to Anita Bohra on 23rd December 2016 for purchase of the property, the assessee had received the following amounts; on 15th December 2016 Rs.4 lakhs RTGS from Sh. Ram Swaroop, on 20th December 2016 Clg Oriental Bank of Commerce Rs.2 lakhs, on 21st December 2016, two entries of disbursement credit of Rs.2,25,000 and Rs.6,30,000/-. The contention of the assessee before the Lower Authorities was that Rs.4 lakhs was gift received from Sh. Ram Swaroop, Rs.2 lakhs was gift received from

P a g e | 10 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam Jyoti Sharma and Rs.2,25,000 and Rs.6 lakhs was the FD Premature amount received by it. As far as the gift received from Sh. Ram Swaroop is concerned the entry in the bank statement corroborates the explanation of the assessee. As far as gift from Jyoti Sharma is concerned, the assessee had furnished copy of gift declaration of Jyoti Sharma along with her bank statement which is placed before us at paper book page No.54 to 56 and was placed before the Lower Authorities also. The bank statement of Jyoti Sharma placed before us at paper book page No.55 to 56 reflects payment of Rs.2 lakhs to Anju Sharma on 20.12.2016 therefore, the fact of the assessee receiving Rs.2 lakhs from Anju Sharma is also corroborated with the documents which were there before both the AO and Ld. CIT(A). 22. With regards to the existence of FD, the assessee had furnished the statement of account of Andhara Bank before us at paper book page No.31 and 32 wherein the fact of the assessee having created FDs of Rs.2,50,000 on 29th March 2016 and Rs.7 lakh on 4th of August 2016 is recorded, and it was these FDs which were prematurely encashed on 21st December 2016, resulting in credits of Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.6,30,000/- in her bank account which were utilized for making investment in loan. Therefore, the source of investment in property to the tune of Rs.9,25,000/- from FDs is also duly corroborated. 23. The findings of the AO rejecting assessee’s explanation , we have noted, is that the assessee had failed to establish the identity of therelatives, their creditworthiness,and genuineness of transaction claimed as gift . Further, the signed letter did not contain confirmation

P a g e | 11 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam of receipt of gift by the assessee. And with regards to premature FD receipts, it was noted that the assessee did not even submit copy of FD statement, its sources etc, and the same could not be verified from 26AS. 24. We find all the above reasons, of the AO to reject assessee’s explanation to be frivolous. As noted above, the bank statements of the assessee and one of the donors corroborated assessee’s stand of having received money from them which was strengthened by the gift deed furnished by the said persons. With respect to FDs, the assessee had sufficiently established with the copy of Bank statements evidencing the credit of FDs amount on encashment, and also that the assessee was the owner of FDs to the tune of Rs.9,25,000/- which was subsequently encashed in his bank account. 25. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that, the assessee had duly explained and substantiated his explanation also regarding the source of investment in property to the tune of Rs.17,11,000/- and the addition made to the income of the assessee by the AO treating the same as unexplained therefore, we hold has no legs to stand upon ,is completely untenable on facts and is directed to be deleted. 26. With regards to the investment made by the assessee of Rs.2,78,490/- on account of payment of stamp duty and additional charges and other registry charges. The contention of the assessee was that it was sourced out of her own income.

P a g e | 12 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam 27. The assessee, we have noted had disclosed business income in the return of income for the year declaring income of Rs.3,15,290/- and considering the same, it is a reasonable to believe that the investment in the property for the charges incurred for registration, therefore was sourced from the cash in hand generated from her own business. The entire addition made to the income of the assessee Rs.19,89,490/- is accordingly directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.

P a g e | 13 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam Technical Unit vide DIN and letter No.ITBA/AST/S?95/2023- 24/105250847(1) dated 01.05.2023,however, till the time of passing of the order valuation report was not received. The AO has further noted that he is accordingly proceeding to decide the issue on basis of material on record, and in case of any discrepancy in the value of the property in question, the assessee may apply for rectification u/s 154 r.w.s. 155(15) on receipt of valuation report from the DVO. 31. Before us, no valuation report of the DVO has been furnished by either of the parties. In the light of the same, we have no hesitation in holding that, the AO had grossly erred in treating the difference between the DLC value of the property purchased and its actual consideration as taxable u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act particularly when reference had been made to the DVO for determination of its fair market value and the same was not received from the DVO. The AO in such circumstances could not have assumed the DLC to be the fair market value of the property, without pointing out any discrepancy in the explanation of the assessee as to why the fair market value of the property purchased by it was lower than its DLC.

P a g e | 14 ITA No. 1260/JPR/2025 Anju Gauttam 33. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on the merits, the rest of the issues raised by the assessee are not being dealt with by us. The other additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment framed kept open for the assessee to take up the same if required at a later stage in accordance with law. 34. In effect, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur