OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.453/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2016-17)

Om Prakash Agrawal Vs. ACIT, 72 Bardia Market Johari Central Circle 4 Bazar Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ABMPA 9947R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. C.L. Yadav, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of Hearing 29.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Jaipur 05 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 01.05.2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal 2. The appeal is marked by the Registry to be delayed for filing by 236 days. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 01.05.2024 and the assessee preferred the appeal before us on 24.03.2025 with a delay of 236 days. 3. Addressing first the delay in the filing of the present appeal before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to an application filed to us bringing out the reasons for delay dated 17.07.2025 as under:- As the delay occurred due to. unavoidable and genuine personal hardship. That the entire responsibility of filing and pursuing the appeal was entrusted to the firm's accountant, Shri Prateek Sharma, who solely handled the ITBA portal and related email communication. Unfortunately, in October 2023, he left the job and relocated to Gurgaon without handing over the credentials or informing the appellant about the case status. Consequently, no compliance could be made to the hearing notices, and the appellate order was neither communicated nor received by the appellant. The fact of dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of demand came to light only in the month of March 2025 when the appellant received a telephonic call from the office of ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. The appellant immediately took steps to approach a Chartered Accountant through his local consultant for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The delay caused in filing the appeal is purely due to lack of communication and was absolutely unintentional and beyond the appellant's control. In view of the foregoing, I humbly pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for hearing in the interest of justice. 4. As is evident from a perusal of the above, the assessee has stated that his entire work relating to income tax matters, including filing and pursuing the appeals, was entrusted to his accountant Sh. Prateek Sharma who left the assessee in October 2023 relocating to Gurgaon without handing over the credentials of the portal though which communication with the department was being done, without informing the assessee about the case status and therefore the assessee was unaware of the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) on 01.05.2024. That the assessee

P a g e | 3 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only when he was telephonically informed by the ITO Ward 1(1) Jaipur in March 2025. That thereafter he immediately took steps to file appeal before us, which was subsequently filed on 24.03.2025. An affidavit stating the above facts on oath by the assessee was also filed. The contents of which are reproduced hereunder:- I Om Prakash Agarwal, do solemnly affirm and declare as under:

P a g e | 4 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed an affidavit of accountant of Sh. Prateek Sharma admitting to the fact that he worked as an accountant for the assessee’s proprietorship concern M/s. Om Abhushan Bhandar and the direct tax related work was being handled by him including the filing of appeals. That he had access of the ITBA portal and the mail id, was created by him and he would liaison with his counsel and intimate him about the notices/orders sent on the portal. That in October, 2023, he got a job in Gurgaon and he left the assessee’s services and therefore the appeal notices/orders could not be communicated to either Sh. Agarwal or to his counsel. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the contents of his condonation of application duly supported with his affidavit and the affidavit of his then accountant to plead that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 236 days in filing of the present appeal before us and the delay therefore needed to be condoned. 7. The Ld. DR however has opposed the condonation of delay. 8. The assessee has also filed before us a paper book containing documents pertaining to the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act which took place in the case of the assessee, including notice u/s 148 of the Act which was issued to the assessee. The assessee has also filed in the paper book, ITRs of the subsequent years showing the email id and mobile number of the assessee. 9. We have considered all the documents filed before us and also the contentions made by both the parties. We find that the explanation of the assessee for the delay are not corroborated but are in fact contrary to the

P a g e | 5 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal facts on record. As per the assessee the email id for communication with the Department was created by his accountant Sh. Prateek Sharma who had access to the ITBA portal of the assessee and he would communicate with the assessee’s counsel and intimate him about the notices and orders sent on the portal. However, the screenshot of the ITBA portal showing notice issued to the assessee during the impugned year u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 shows that it was issued on the email id abhayjain.ca@gmail.com. The ITRs filed in the subsequent years for AY 2017-18 placed before us in the paper book at page No.3 show the email address reflecting therein by the assessee as rameshcjainassociatesca@yahoo.co.in, the same email id is reflected in the ITR filed by the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2020-21 copies of which were placed before us at paper book page No.4 & 5. 10. This communication of notice u/s 148 of the Act and ITRs of the assessee of A.Y 2017-18, 2018-19 & AY 2020-21 were filed when apparently the accountant of the assessee was working with him, since he has stated on oath to haveleft only in October 2023, while all these notices and ITRs were filed upto 2020-21 the notice u/s 148 of the Act being issued on 31-03-2021, ITR for A.Y 2017-18 filed on 01-11-2017, ITR for A.Y 2018-19 filed on 30-10-2018, & ITR for A.Y 2020-21 filed on 30-03-2021. In the affidavit filed by the accountant, the email id which he had created is not mentioned, and he has stated to have created an email id to which he had access. His contentions on oath are not supported with any facts since he has not mentioned the email id created by him. The facts on record however reveal that the email id apparently

P a g e | 6 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal related to some Chartered Accountant of the assessee since the Section 148 notice was issued to abhayjain.ca@gmail.com and returns were filed by email address rameshcjainassociatesca@yahoo.co.in. The facts before us do not support the explanation of the assessee. If the accountant had created email id as noted in the documents above, it appears that the email id created is of the consultants at various points of time of the assessee. Therefore, all the notices were being apparently served to the different consultants of the assessee. And it is incomprehensible and beyond belief that an email id of the consultant was accessible only to the accountant of the assessee. 11. The email id created by the accountant has not been mentioned by him in his affidavit. Records before us show that the email id with the department apparently was of some CA. The accountant of the assessee or for that matter the assessee are not coming out clean with the facts. And noting the facts before us that the email id was of some professional, it is difficult to believe that the email was accessible only by the accountant of the assessee and no other person. 12. Besides this, the other anomaly/deficiency noted in the explanation is that the assessee has stated that his accountant Sh. Prateek Sharma who was handling all tax related work of the assessee left in October 2023. Mr. Prateek Sharma in his affidavit had corroborated the same fact but no evidence or proof of Sh. Prateek Sharma leaving the services of the assessee has been filed in support of the facts stated in the affidavit of both the assessee and his accountant. The assessee is a jeweler and running a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s. Om Abhushan

P a g e | 7 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal Bhandar. Having stated on oath to be working in the proprietorship concern, the assessee must be paying salary to the accountant. There must be evidence of the accountant being in service of the assessee and also leaving his job in October 2023 . But no evidence in this regard has been filed before us. 13. The facts stated on oath are unsubstantiated and contrary to facts on record and therefore we hold, that they have no evidentiary value. 14. Therefore, we find no reason to believe the facts stated by the assessee and his alleged accountant that the delay in filing of the appeal occurred because the accountant who was handling the assessee's tax related matters left in October 2023 and the assessee was completely unaware of how to handle the portal of the Income Tax Department and thus was not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15. Going further no valid reasons have been given by the ld. Counsel for the assessee as to how he subsequently became aware of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order. In his affidavit he stated that he received telephonic call from ITO informing him passing of the order in March 2025. The Department completely denies the same. There is no reason at all for the ITO informing on telephone the fact of an order being passed and that too after almost year of passing of the order. Therefore, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that he became aware of the passing of the Ld. CIT(A) order when informed by the ITO in March 2025 appears to be just an off hand statement

P a g e | 8 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal made by him which not only is absurd but also unsubstantiated with any evidence. 16. Thus, the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay of 236 days in the filing of the present appeal before us, on the face of it does not appear to be genuine, since the facts stated for the delay occurring are not substantiated with any evidence at all and are not corroborated with the facts on record but in fact the records reveal different facts.. Such reason for the delay cannot be entertained for determining whether it constitutes sufficient cause for the delay and for the same reason therefore we hold that since the assessee has failed to establish and demonstrate the existence of sufficient cause for the delay of 236 days in the filing of the present appeal before us, we do not condone the delay. 17. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly not admitted for adjudication and dismissed as non-maintainable. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 28.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT

P a g e | 9 ITA No.453/JPR/2025 Om Prakash Agrawal 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Mittali Digitally signed by: Mittali DN: CN = Mittali email = Asst. Registrar mittaligupta34671@gmail. ITAT, Jaipur com C = IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:42:54 + 05'30'