Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed 106 days beyond the limitation period. The assessee is an 86-year-old senior citizen who claims the impugned order was not served at her local address. The delay occurred due to an issue with the email address provided in Form 35, where she opted out of receiving communications.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, given the circumstances of non-service of notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard?
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
As a result, and in view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the matter is be remanded to the Assessing Officer so as to provide reasonable opportunity of being herd to the assessee and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law.
File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/09/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- 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:- 29/09/2025 Sarla Devi , Jaipur. *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sarla Devi, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत