GEETA VIJAYWARGIYA,INDORE vs. ITO WD, TONK, TONK
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No.1245/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2014-15
Geeta Vijaywargiya
19/3, Royal Park 3, New Palasia Road,
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. AARPV8726H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Jaideep Jain, Adv. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: None lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 17/11/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 17/11/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
On 05.08.2025, the assessee filed an appeal, feeling aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated
18.05.2023, relating to the assessment year 2014-15, came to be dismissed and while exercising powers u/s 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act
(in short “the Act”), the matter stands referred back to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment.
2
Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore.
Learned CIT(A) so referred the matter to the Assessing Officer keeping in view that during assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish vital information relating to transaction with M/s M N
Enterprises, and while appreciating the contention on behalf of the appellant raised there that the Assessing Officer had overlooked relevant documents submitted during assessment proceedings.
Learned CIT(A) was of the view that all the aspects raised by the assessing in the appeal required re-examination, including as to the nature and source of the transactions made by the appellant and that the assessee was entitled to an opportunity, in the interest of principles of natural justice, as per decision in CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, Civil
Appeal No. 3312 of 2009, wherein importance of reasonable opportunity was emphasized by Hon’ble Apex Court.
Condonation of delay
2. It may be mentioned here that the Registry raised a deficiency note that the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed after a delay of 249
days.
3
Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore.
Despite the above said deficiency note, the assessee has not submitted any application seeking condonation of delay. Column no. 11 of Form 36, requires that in case there is delay in filing of the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay is to be attached to the memorandum of appeal. 4. Be that as it may, it was for the assessee-appellant to satisfy that there was sufficient cause in non-filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. Only of such satisfaction, Appellate Tribunal would admit the appeal while condoning delay in filing of the appeal. Since no such application has been filed or prayer has been made seeking condonation of delay and no sufficient cause has been alleged, what to say of its proof, it can safely be said that there was no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal withint the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
4
Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore.
Result
5. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation.
File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17/11/2025. ¼xxu xks;y½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 17/11/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward, Tonk.
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT
4. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1245/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत