Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as barred by limitation. The assessment order was passed ex-parte without the assessee's participation due to compelling circumstances arising from marital discord. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and learned about the assessment order later.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had presented sufficient reasons and documents to justify the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), attributing it to marital discord and non-receipt of proper communication. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned due to the assessee's personal circumstances, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 13B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1239/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deepika Ravjani Cuke The ITO, Vs. C/o Bhgagwandas Narandas Manglani Jay Ward-5(2), Gurunank, Temple Udhi Street Ladi Road, Jaipur. Jetpur-360370, Gujarat. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AFYPR7773Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 13/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Assessee-appellant is feeling aggrieved by order dated 07.07.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), as thereby her appeal presented there on 16.10.2021, challenging assessment order dated 05.12.2019, relating to the assessment year 2012-13, has been dismissed being barred by Deepika Ravjani vs. ITO limitation, without adjudicating the dispute on merits. That appeal is stated to have been filed 650 days after prescribed period of limitation.
Vide assessment order dated 05.12.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e. one of Rs. 32,60,000/- and other of Rs. 17,298/-, and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 32,77,298/-, even though the assessee had not filed any return of income for the assessment year 2012-13.
Arguments heard. File perused. Contentions 4. As regards dismissal of the appeal by Learned CIT(A), being barred by limitation, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that due to compelling circumstances, the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings, and accordingly could not even challenge the impugned assessment before Learned CIT(A), within prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, Ld. AR has referred to the reasons given in column no. 15 of Form 35, presented before Learned CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal there.
As is available from column no. 15 of Form 35, the assessee claimed before Learned CIT(A) that before her marriage ( which was solemnized on 25.11.2007, in Jaipur), she was residing in the company of her parents Deepika Ravjani vs. ITO in Jetpur, District Rajkot, Gujarat, and on solemnization of her marriage started residing at her matrimonial home, in Hyderabad, Telangana. As further claimed by the appellant, her income being non taxable, she did not file return of income for the financial year 2011-12. She denied to have received any notice as well as assessment order from the department, same having not been served on her, and actually having been sent on e- mail of her previous consultant. She claims to have learnt about the ex-parte assessment order, when her Chartered Accountant applied for the same before the Assessing Officer, only on receipt of notice of penalty. Notices are claimed to have been received by the consultant earlier engaged by her father. Case of the appellant is that said consultant was disengaged ultimately.
Ld. AR for the appellant has drawn our addition to affidavit dated 24.11.2022, submitted by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Ld. AR has also drawn our attention to copy of agreement arrived at between the assessee-appellant and her husband Shri Ravi Bijawat, in proof of their matrimonial dispute and their settlement in respect thereof reached on 11.05.2022. Attention has also been drawn to copy of order Deepika Ravjani vs. ITO dated 13.05.2022, passed by Learned Judge, Family Court -1, Jaipur Mahanagar 1st, Jaipur.
As is available from the copy of the above mentioned settlement agreement dated 11.05.2022, and the order passed by the Family Court, marital bond of the assessee with her husband came to be dissolved on 13.05.2022. Having reached an amicable settlement arrived, the parties filed a Petition u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Above mentioned documents are available from page 5 to 15 of the paper book submitted before this Bench.
From said documents, it transpires that dispute arose, as mentioned in the affidavit, during subsistence of her marriage while she was living in Khairtabad, Hyderabad. She started working as a teacher in School, and that ultimately she shifted to her parental house on 18.01.2021. As noticed above, the assessment order pertains to the assessment year 2012-13, passed on 05.12.2019. We may observe that as regards notices stated to have been issued by the Assessing Officer, during the period from 20.03.2019 to 26.11.2019, and still there being no representation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings, affidavit of the concerned C.A. should have been filed to Deepika Ravjani vs. ITO support the claim of the appellant, to justify non appearance in the assessment proceedings , but no such affidavit was submitted. However taking into consideration, the claim regarding marriage of the assessee, due to marital discord, she having shifted from parental house to the matrimonial home, and to have returned to the parental house in January, 2021, it appears that the assessee has explained as to why she could not participate in the assessment proceeding i.e. for want of proper assistance from the concerned authorized representative. For the same reasons, we find that the assessee was not in a position to know about the passing of the assessment order from the authorized representative in due time so as to prefer an appeal before Learned CIT(A) within the prescribed period.
In the given situation, we deem it a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation is hereby set aside.
It may be mentioned here that in the course of arguments, Ld. AR has presented paper book containing documents from page 1 to 28.