VARSHARANI,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD-4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2012-13)

Varsharani Vs. ITO Pahalwan Colony Ward 4 Dholpur Bharatpur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ANBVP 0396 G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Sharma, C.A. (thru V.C.) Respondent by : Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 31.08.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A), Delhi 11 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 10.06.2024 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The Orders of the Authorities below reveal that both the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) order have been passed ex parte with the assessee appearing neither before the AO nor before the Ld.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani CIT(A). As per the assessment order, assessment in the present case was framed u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information available with the AO, that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.61,36,516/-. However, ex parte assessment order was passed making the addition to the income of the assessee on account of investment in the immovable property, the source of which remained unexplained amounting to Rs.6,17,735/- only, since on perusal of the purchase deed during the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the said property was purchased by two persons being the assessee Smt. Varsharani and Smt. Mamta Gupta with half share each respectively, for a total consideration of Rs.12,35,740/-. Accordingly, the AO made addition of half value of the property so purchased amounting to Rs.6,17,735/-, to the income of the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO in the absence of any assistance from the assessee to dislodge the findings by the AO. 4. Before me, the assessee has filed an appeal albeit with a delay of 351 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed stating that the assessee is a homemaker residing at Dholpur, a non-metropolitan area. That the assessee does not have any substantial educational background and has no understanding of the income tax law, the system of electronic proceedings and electronic services of notice. That the assessee had not received any communication in respect of the assessment proceedings for the impugned year and had remained wholly unaware of the same. That the assessee had requested for service of physical notice but despite

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani repeated request no physical notice was served on the assessee. That the delay occurred due to lack of knowledge of online proceedings and therefore could not take action within the statutorily prescribed period for filing the appeal. 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on her part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned. 6. We have heard both the parties. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. 7. Considering the averments made by the assessee before me, I am of the view that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay in the filing of the present appeal before me, and I condone the delay of 351 days in the filing of the present appeal before me. Order was pronounced in the Open Court.

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani 8. Taking up the appeal for hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. Impugned assessment order dated 25.11.2019 passed under section 144/147 is bad in law and on facts being against the principal of natural justice, initiated on incorrect assumption of facts and for many more other reasons. 2. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the addition the addition of 6,17,735/-. The said action isis bad in law and onfacts being against the principal of natural justice and many more statutory reasons. 3. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. A.O. has erred by determining total income at Rs. 6,17,735, which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) The income determined is excessive, unjustified or illegal and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend, modify, delete or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 9. Taking up first the legal ground raised by the assessee, challenging the validity of the assessment framed, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that there was completely non- application of mind by the AO while reopening the case of the assessee. That while he had reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of information that the assessee had made investment in an immovable property to tune of Rs.61,36,516/- however, on the basis of very same information in his possession, he found the investment made by the property to be to the tune of Rs.6,17,735/- which he ultimately made to the income of the assessee in an ex parte order passed. 10. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the AO had not applied his mind to the information available with him and had reopened the case of the assessee assuming incorrect facts of the quantum of investment made by the assessee in the immovable

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani property. This argument was first made by the assessee before me, when the matter was listed for hearing on the 24.06.2026. On the said occasion the ld. Counsel for the assessee sought some time to collect relevant documents to support his arguments. The Bench directed the DR to produce the assessment records so as to facilitate adjudicating the issue. The contents of the order sheet entry directing so on 24.06.2026 are as under:- Both the assessment order and CIT (A) order passed in the present case are ex-parte. Addition has been made in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on the account of investment in immovable property to the tune of Rs. 6,17,735/- on account of the source of the same remaining unexplained. There is a delay of 351 days in the filing of the present appeal before me for which an application seeking condonation delay has been filed. Ld.Counsel for the assessee has stated that he intends raising legal ground before me challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act, on the ground that while the reasons for reopening the case of the assessee stated investment in immovable property by the assessee to the tune of Rs.61,36,516/-, the order passed noted the actual investment in the property to be Rs.12,35,470/- with the assessee being owner of half share in the property. That this reflected complete non application of mind by the AO while assuming jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee sought time to collect relevant documents to support the arguments. The Ld. DR at the juncture is directed to produce the assessment records. The case stand adjourned to 14.07.2026 Sd/- Annapurna Gupta 11. Thereafter today when matter came up for hearing the entire assessment records were produced before me and it was noted from the same that the ld. CIT(A) had sought a remand report from the AO in the case of the assessee and the AO in his reply had submitted that as per information available from DIT(I&CI) the assessee had entered into transaction of the immovable property for Rs.61,36,516/- but the matter of purchase or selling was not clear and therefore this information was

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani considered as purchase value ,but from the perusal of the purchase deed it had emanated that the assessee had invested in the immovable property for Rs.6,17,735/-. The contents of the remand report are as under:- 1. During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased an immovable property, the source of investment remained unexplained due to non-filing of ITR for A.Y. 2012-13. The onus was upon the assessee to prove his claim in respect of source of investment during the relevant year, however no documentary evidence had been furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

(1) Please confirm "Whether " VARSHA" and "VARSHARANI' is one and the same person".

(it) Furnish Copy of Pan, Aadhar Card and copy of 10 standard Mark Sheet/certificate.

(iii) Clarification regarding the value of the property.

In response to the aforesaid letter, no reply was submitted by the assessee. Therefore, a reminder was issued on 19.05.2022 to furnish the submission.

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani but the matter of purchasing/selling is not clear at that time. Therefore, the information related to transaction of Rs 61,36,516/ was considered as purchasing value but during the course of assessment proceedings, it was clear from the purchase deed that the assessee had invested in the immovable property for Rs 6,17,735/- 1.0. ½ of total purchase value of Rs. 12,35,470/- (Purchase value of Rs. 9,90,000/-, Stamp Value Rs. 2,00,000/- and Other expenses including short fall of stamp duty Rs. 45,470/-) on 21.04.2011. Purchase deed is attached herewith. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 6,17,735/- invested in immovable property was considered as unexplained investment under the I.T. Act, 1951 and added to the total income of the assessee for the financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year 2012-13. 5.It is well established fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assesseehad failed to submit any reply/evidence regarding the source of investment in the immovable property. 12. It is evident from the above, that the AO had formed belief of escapement of income of the assessee, so as to assume jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee, merely on the basis of information which was given to him by the DIT(I&CI) and had not applied his mind at all to the said information nor made any inquiries, which otherwise would have revealed the true quantum of investment made by the assessee in the purchase of the immovable property. On the basis of information made available to him the AO believed income to have escaped assessment on account of investment made by the assessee in an immoveable property to the extent of Rs. 61, 36,516/-, however the purchase deed of the impugned property, which was available with him as noted in the assessment order, revealed the quantum of investment to be Rs.6,17,735/- only. The AO had only considered the information passed on to him from DIT(I&CI) while forming belief of escapement of income to the tune of Rs.61,36,516/- , and completely failed to verify the information with the purchase deed of the property

P a g e | 8 ITA No. 1141/JPR/2025 Varsharani which was available with him and which clearly revealed a far lesser quantum of investment made by the assessee in the said property. 13. It is a clear case of non-application of mind by the AO while reopening the case of the assessee, which as a consequence, has lead to the formation of belief of incorrect quantum of escapement of income of the assessee. And for this reason alone the assessment order passed is held to be without valid jurisdiction and is quashed. 14. Since the assessment order has been quashed as above, the rest of the issues raised by the assessee are not being dealt with by me. The other legal grounds are kept open for the assessee to be taken up, if required, at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 15. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 31.08.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur