POONAM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 951/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Smt. Poonam Jain
50-A, Arjun Nagar, Durgapura
Jaipur – 302 018
Ward -6 (2)
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADLPJ 8425 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 07/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 24.05.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13
raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law id.
CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee The action of Id CIT (A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal
2
CIT(A)/NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred in not granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The action of Id
AO/NFAC is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of case Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire reassessment order as the same is passed against the principles of natural justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in making addition of Rs 42,82,000 as unexplained money of the assessee The action of the Id CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs 42,82,000 made to the total income of the assessen
4 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law id
CIT(ANFAC has erred in making addition of Rs 3,14,300 as unexplained investment of the assessee. The action of the Id
CIT(A) is legal unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case
Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs
3,14,300/- made to the total income of the assessee
1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 330 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 21-04-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’Assessment proceedings u/s 147 were completed in the case of the assessee on 31.10 2019 by making additions of Rs 45.96,300 to the total income of the assessee
Against such assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(A) on 18.02.2020 which was decided ex-parte by Id. CIT(A). Thereafter, order passed by Id. CIT(A) was not perused by the assessee due to medical reasons. The assessee was ill for a very long time and due to which the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time as provided under the Act.
3
A humble prayer is made that there is a reasonable cause for delay. The delay is not willful. This application is supported by affidavit, in this regard.’’
The assessee has also filed an affidavit deposing therein that the impugned appellate order dated 24-05-2024 was never physically served upon her despite a clear and specific request in Form 35 to serve all notices/ orders at her registered address. She further deposed that even otherwise the online e-mails of the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect e-mail ID despite clearly mentioning ‘’info@vyasmvyas.com’’ in Form 35. She further deposed that after filing of appeal on18-02-2020, hearing of the matter was fixed on 09-04-2024 (i.e. approx. more than 4 years). It was only in May 2025 that her counsel became aware of the notices uploaded in the Income
Tax Portal, upon which immediate action was initiated and the impugned order was passed hastily on 24-05-2025 thereby depriving her of a 4
SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR reasonable opportunity of being heard. She further deposed that at the relevant time when the ld. CIT(A) passed the order dated 24-05-2024 then that time she was suffering from back pain and due to which she was under continuous medical treatment and advised complete bed rest by Dr. Ritu
Raj Sharma, MD (Alternative Medicine) and thus she took treatment of Panchkarma in Month of May, June and July year 2024 and the delay occurred in late filing of the appeal before ITAT. Hence, the delay in late filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.
2.2
On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case.
2.3
After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the non-receipt of the notices by the assessee at her correct e-mail address as well as her ill health, the Bench adopts the lenient view and condones the delay in late filing the appeal before ITAT.
3.1
Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.
CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that despite multiple opportunities the assessee had not discharged
5
SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR its primary onus to prove the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank account during the appellate proceedings and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:-
Decision:-
10. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, assessment order and material available on record. Since the appellant has not furnished any submissions this office is proceeding to decide the case based on material available on record
1. The case of the appellant was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information that the appellant has deposited huge cash in the bank account and d out an immovable property during financial year 2011- 12 Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant requiting to file the ITR within the prescribed time limit. Further various notices were issued to the appellant requesting to furnish his reply on the issue of cash deposited and purchased of the immovable properly during the year under consideration. The appellant did not reply to any of the notices
1.1 During the assessment proceedings, statutory notices were issued to appellant to submit the documentary evidences and requested to explain the source of cash deposit in the Bank account and purchase of the immovable property When the appellant did not participate in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer collected information from the State Bank of India and the Sub-