KAMLA LAMBA,BHIWADI vs. CIRCLE 1, ALWAR, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1675/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a one-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed this delay was due to a bona fide confusion regarding the limitation period.

What were the issues?

Whether a one-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The validity of issuing a notice under Section 148 and making an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were also grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: CA (through V.C.)
Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1675/JPR/2025 Kamla Lamba IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1675/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2016-17) Kamla Lamba Vs. ACIT, J-1410, 11, 12, Bhiwadi Circle-1, RIICO Ind Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar Bhiwadi, Alwar 301019 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABKPL0295R Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (through V.C.) Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29.09.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1675/JPR/2025 Kamla Lamba 2. The assessee in his appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

“Ground 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in issuing the notice under section 1 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the difference in stamp duty valuation of the property, which is illegal, unjustified, and bad in law. “Ground 2 On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law ld. AO erred and simultaneously Ld.CIT(A) also erred in making addition under u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of I.T Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 3844305/- without appreciating facts of the case which is illegal, unwanted and liable to be deleted. Ground Assessee deserves right to amend, alter, DLEETE and modify any ground of appeal on OR before the due date of hearing of appeal.”

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to submit that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation for a delay of one day only in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was under the bona-fide impression that the limitation for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was one month, whereas, in fact, it was 30 days, under such confusion, a delay of one day has occurred.

4.

Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that the minor delay of one day in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is required to be condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The delay of one day in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1675/JPR/2025 Kamla Lamba hereby condoned, and the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a decision afresh in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 08.06.2026 Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS True Copy Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →