SMT. ANURADHA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 396/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 cuke Smt. Anuradha Sharma The ITO, Vs. H-179,180, Malviya Industrial Area, Ward-6(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANPPS 6151A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Punam Rai (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/07/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/07/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2018 of CIT (A), for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised various grounds in this appeal however, ground No. 2 of the assessee is relevant for adjudication of this appeal which reads as under:-

ITA No. 396/JP/2018 Smt. Anuradha Sharma vs. ITO

“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A), Ajmer has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of stated delay in filing of appeal.”

the ground of barred by limitation as there was delay of 37 day in filing

the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay in

filing the appeal was duly explained as per affidavits of the ld. AR of the

assessee which has been reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in para 3.1 of

the impugned order. However, the ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the

delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine without

deciding the matter on merits. Thus, the ld. AR has pleaded that the

delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be

condoned.

condonation of delay and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) found the

explanation is not sufficient for delay in filing the appeal. The ld. DR has

also objected to the other grounds raised by the assessee and

particularly ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal challenging the

validity of reopening and submitted that the assessee did not raise this

ITA No. 396/JP/2018 Smt. Anuradha Sharma vs. ITO

ground before authorities below. She has relied upon the order of the

ld. CIT(A).

materials on record. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)

belatedly and also filed an application for condonation of delay as well

as affidavit of Shri Arvind Sharma (Advocate) the authorized

representative of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the

contents of the application and affidavits in paras 3 and 3.1 as under:-

“3.0 It is seen from Form No. 35 that the appeal has been filed on 09.06.2014. The date of service of demand notice as mentioned in form is 03.04.2014. Thus, it is clear that the appeal has not been presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has filed an application dated 09.06.2014 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating as under:

"With reference to above we may submit that the assessee has received the captioned assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed u/s 144 read with section 148 on 03.04.2014 alongwith the notice of demand raising demand of Rs.1863720/-. We may submit that the assessee handed over the order to her counsel Shri Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for further consultation and further action to be taken. However, due to his preoccupation, he could not give time for the same. An affidavit .9f the advocate in this respect is enclosed herewith. Now, the advocate has referred the matter to us in the first week of June, 2014. However, the prescribed time limit of 30 days had already expired by then. 3

ITA No. 396/JP/2018 Smt. Anuradha Sharma vs. ITO

For this reason, there has been a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal which may kindly be condoned."

3.1 Along with the application the appellant has also filed an affidavit of Shri Arvind Shrama affirming as under:

"I, Arvind Sharma S/o Sh. Narayan Dutt Sharma aged 53 R/o of 8/195, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur having office at G-1, Suffal Apartment, Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur specially in the core area of Indirect Taxation.

Thus, it is clear that the assessee explained the cause of delay that due

to the pre occasion of the authorized representative, the appeal could

not be filed within the period of limitation and therefore, there was a

delay of 37 days in filing the appeal. This explanation of cause of delay

was duly supported by the affidavit Shri Arvind Sharma (Adv.) the ld. AR

of the assessee who has affirmed that due pre occupancy in the indirect

ITA No. 396/JP/2018 Smt. Anuradha Sharma vs. ITO

taxation matter and frequent outstation visits he could not file the

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) within the period of limitation. He has also

stated in the affidavit that he rather advised the assessee to appoint

another counsel to deal with the matter in the appellate proceedings

though the assessee did not chose to change the counsel. Accordingly,

we find that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) of 37

days was duly explained as attributable to the preoccupancy of the ld.

AR of the assessee in the other matters as he was busy in attending

indirect tax matters outside Rajasthan and could not find time to file the

appeal also before the ld. CIT(A) within the period of limitation. The ld.

CIT(A) rejected this application only on the ground that once the

authorized representative advised the assessee to engage some other

counsel then the delay in filing the appeal cannot be attributed to the

authorized representative. We do not concur with the view of the ld.

CIT(A) and find that the assessee has explained a sufficient cause for

not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly,

we condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before the ld.

CIT(A).

accordingly, we set aside the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for 5

ITA No. 396/JP/2018 Smt. Anuradha Sharma vs. ITO adjudication of the same on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say the assessee is at liberty to raise the grounds against the reopening of the assessment if she wishes so.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/07/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Bhagchand) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/07/2018. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Anuradha Sharma, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 396/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत