VEENA GOYAL W/O LATE SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA GOYAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

WTA/2/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02051897202314 August 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following its previous order in D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No.4/2023, decided that there was confusion by the introduction of faceless hearings, which led the appellant to file an appeal before the wrong CIT(A). The appellant's prayer for transfer of appeal and the explanation for the delay were considered. The Tribunal found that the appellant was pursuing a remedy, albeit on wrong advice. Consequently, the impugned order 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. The ratio decidendi is that procedural confusions and delays caused by administrative changes, if properly explained and pursued diligently, should not prejudice the assessee's right to a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Veena Goyal, filed a wealth tax appeal before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The appeal challenges an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur. The assessment year in dispute is 2014-15. The procedural history indicates that the appellant had previously filed an appeal before the CIT(A) Jaipur, but received a notice from CIT(A) Delhi. This led to a confusion regarding jurisdiction, and the appellant sought transfer of the appeal. The appellant also approached the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur, for recalling an order and transferring the appeal. The High Court notes that the issue is identical to a previous appeal (D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No.4/2023) decided on 22.11.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and decide the appeal on merits, considering the confusion regarding jurisdiction and mistaken advice leading to procedural delays. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there was confusion due to the introduction of faceless hearings, leading to the appeal being filed before the wrong CIT(A). The assessee pursued remedies, albeit on wrong advice, and explained the delay. The assessee sought condonation of delay and a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the assessee. The revenue's counsel accepted notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:31730-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 2/2023 Veena Goyal W/o Late Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal, Aged About 75 Years, Having Her 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. Prabansh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 14/08/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. Both the counsels are ad idem that the issue raised in the present petition is identical to the issue raised in D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No.4/2023, wherein this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 passed the following directions: “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

[2025:RJ-JP:31730-DB] (2 of 2) [WTA-2/2023] impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. 8. The appeal is allowed.” 4. Keeping in view that the issue relates to the same individual and the facts are identical except for the assessment year 2014-15, we allow the present wealth tax appeal mutatis mutantis. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J MAHIMA/RAHUL/9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →