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

[2024:RJ-JP:47973-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 3/2023 Manuj Goyal S/o Late Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal, Aged About 53 Years, Having His Addressa 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 Connected With D.B. Wealth Tax Appeal No. 4/2023 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. Prabhansh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 22/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J :- 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.

[2024:RJ-JP:47973-DB] (2 of 3) [WTA-3/2023] 2. These two appeals are filed against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed on 29.03.2023. 3. The appeal was admitted on 06.11.2024 on the following substantial question of law:- “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 by 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 in CIT (A) Jaipur. The notice of hearing was received from the CIT(A) Delhi. Request was made by the appellant that on the basis of jurisdiction the appeal be transferred 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 for recalling of the order before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. On receiving no reply, the appeal was preferred against the order of the First Appellate Authority. There was delay of 178 days in filing the appeal for which the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was pursuing the remedy and issue with regard to jurisdiction before the CIT(A) Delhi. Without hearing the request of the appellant for transfer was not considered. The delay was bonafide and sufficiently explained.

[2024:RJ-JP:47973-DB] (3 of 3) [WTA-3/2023] 6. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order, submits that the application filed before the Principal Chief Commissioner, Delhi was not a statutory remedy. 7. Taking into account that there was a confusion with regard to introduction of faceless hearing of the appeals. The appellant had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) Jaipur but had received notice from CIT(A) Delhi. The issue of jurisdiction was raised and also accompanied a prayer for transfer of appeal before to Jaipur. The issue of transfer to the appeal to Jaipur was not considered. The appellant approached under the mistaken advise to approach the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur for recalling of the order and transfer of the appeal to Delhi. The delay has been explained sufficiently by the appellant on a bonafide ground of wrong advise in pursuing the appropriate remedy. The impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned. Matter is remitted back to Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. 8. The appeal is allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/96-97