MANUJ GOYAL S/O LATE SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA GOYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

PDF · subscribers
WTA/1/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02051878202326 August 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT was not right in deciding the matter solely on the basis of the delay without touching upon the merits and jurisdictional issues. The Court noted that there was confusion due to the introduction of faceless hearings, and the appellant had filed an appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur but received a notice from CIT(A) Delhi. The issue of jurisdiction was raised, and a prayer for transfer was made. The appellant, acting on mistaken advice, approached the Principal Chief Commissioner for recalling the order and transfer. The Court found the delay to be explained and that the appellant was pursuing a remedy, albeit on wrong advice. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manuj Goyal, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 29, 2023. The ITAT's order was a consequence of an earlier order by the CIT(A) dated March 30, 2022, which had rejected the assessee's appeal. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed after a survey conducted on August 17-18, 2017, and subsequent assessment under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee had raised a jurisdictional issue with the CIT(A) and requested a transfer of the appeal to Jaipur, which was not addressed. The assessee then filed an application before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, for recalling the order. Upon receiving no response, the appeal was filed before the ITAT, accompanied by an application for condonation of a 178-day delay, which was rejected.

What were the issues?

1. Whether in law the Ld. ITAT was right in deciding the matter merely on the basis of the delay in filing the case without touching the merits and jurisdictional issues of the case (Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and principles of natural justice). Assessee's contentions: The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was bonafide and duly explained. The appellant was pursuing a remedy before the Principal Commissioner and contended that the request for transfer of the appeal was not considered. Revenue's contentions: The respondent defended the impugned order, submitting that despite the remedy of appeal, the appellant chose to file an application before the Principal Chief Commissioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:33774-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 1/2023 Manuj Goyal S/o Late Shri Subhash Chandra Goya, Having His Address At 76, Dhuleshwar Garden Jaipur 302001 ----Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nagendra Singh Adha on behalf of Mr. Prabhansh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. There were four appeals filed all arising out of the same impugned order dated 29th March 2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). 2. Two of the matters namely, D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal Nos.3/2023 and 4/2023 came to be disposed by a common order dated 22nd November 2024. 3. Counsel states that same order be passed in this appeal as well. 4. The order dated 22nd November 2024 reads as under:- “1. These appeals are decided by this common order as the issue and facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 3/2023. 2. The appeal is filed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29.03.2023. 3. The appeal was admitted on 06.11.2024 on the following substantial question of law:-

[2025:RJ-JP:33774-DB] (2 of 2) [WTA-1/2023] “Whether in law the Ld. ITAT was right in deciding the matter merely on the basis of the delay in filing the case without touching the merits and jurisdictional issues of the case.” 4. The brief facts are that the survey was conducted of the appellant on 17.08.2017 & 18.08.2017. After issuance of notice, assessment under Section 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was finalized. On 26.10.2018, appeal was filed by the appellant before CIT (A) Jaipur. The notice of hearing was received from the CIT(A) Delhi. Appellant raised issue of jurisdiction and requested for transfer of appeal to Jaipur. The appellate authority without dealing with the request for transfer of the case rejected the appeal vide order dated 30.03.2022. The appellant filed an application before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur for recalling of the order. Having received no response, the appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A). Application for condonation of delay of 178 days accompanying the appeal was rejected, hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was pursuing the remedy before Principal Commission. Contention is that the request of the appellant for transfer of appeal was not considered. The delay was bonafide and is duly explained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order, submits that inspite of remedy of appeal, appellant chose to file application before the Principal Chief Commissioner. 7. Taking into account that there was a confusion by introduction of faceless hearing of the appeals. The appellant had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) Jaipur but received notice from CIT(A) Delhi. The issue of jurisdiction was raised by appellant and also a prayer for transfer of appeal was made. The appellant under the mistaken advise approached the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur for recalling of the order and for transfer of the appeal to Jaipur. The delay has been explained. The appellant was pursuing remedy albeit, on wrong advise. The impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Matter is remitted back to Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. 8. The appeal is allowed.” 4. Ordered accordingly. 5. Appeal disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/8

More judgments on Section 17

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →