PUSHPA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 896/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15
Smt. Pushpa Upadhyay
F-4/36, SangamVihar
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur – 302 039
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPU 3841 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA
Shri R.K. Bhatra, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 13/08/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 07-06-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) on ex-parte basis is wrong
2
2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in passing impugned appellate order in as much as the order has been passed without calling any report from the Id. AO in respect of additions made in assessment and explanations/submissions made by the appellant before him and therefore, deserves to be set aside and passed de novo.
3. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming following additions made by the Id. AO to the income of the appellant :-
(a) On account of investment in MF
Rs. 2,00,000
(b) On account of alleged unverified time deposits
Rs. 5,52,000
(c) On account of alleged undeclared interest income
Rs. 11,40,528
Total
Rs.18,92,528
2.1
At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 645 days in filing the appeal before ITAT for which the assessee has filed an application dated 17-06-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasons.
‘’With reference to above, it is submitted that the due date of filing the appeal before your Honors was 06.08.2023 and the delay of 670 days occurred for the reasons submitted herein below:-
1. That I am super senior citizen and widow of Late Lt. Col.
3. That my counsel had made an e-mail ID of mine for filing of Income tax returns and same was operated by him only. I do not know the operating procedure i.e. open and reply to the mailing system. I am and my son both were dependent on my counsel for Income tax matters. All notices and orders, etc. were received in the email were checked and responded to by my said counsel only.
4 (i) My said counsel did not inform either me or my son regarding any notice of fixation of appeal before the NFAC,
Delhi. It is also pertinent to mention here that I personally do not know the said counsel, who was engaged by my son with reference in his friend. A notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act,
1961 dated 17.12.2024 was sent to me by my said counsel. As I am totally unaware about the income tax matters and as such, I informed to my son immediately regarding the said notice. But, due to his engagement in some very confidential matters, he could not pay much attention to the said notice and in the month of April, 2025 when he felt comfortable, contacted to my counsel. At that time, I came to know about the ex-parte appeal order due to none compliance the appeal hearing notice.
Further, my said counsel also informed me that he is not having any information about fixation notices of hearing the appeal,
My son after having unpleasant discussion with the said counsel, on advice of our close relation, appointed new counsel to do the needful at the earliest in the matter. My present
4
SMT. PUSHPA UPADHYAY VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR counsel after collecting necessary documents for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, prepared and filed this appeal.
4(ii) Further, it is humbly submitted that being a settled legal principle that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to gain by either preferring an appeal belatedly or not appearing before the appellant forum. However, there may be cases where for certain malafide reasons, the appellant will avoid proceedings, but in the case of the assessee, there is no such record that the appellant had deliberately lodged appeal belatedly before the Hon'ble Bench. Further, it is also evident and verifiable from the Appellate Order that there is no such record that the assessee deliberately do not appear before the CIT(A) for certain other collateral purposes. Apart from that the matter involves a huge tax liability on a deceased Military official widow and the appellant remedy being to set aside the matter to the Id. CIT(A) and the Commissioner's powers are coterminous with that power of Assessing Officer
In view of the above facts and circumstances, appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the statutory time limit and in the interest of justice, I humbly pray for condonation of days delay in filing the appeal. It is therefore, again humbly prayed to your Honors that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal may very kindly be ordered to be admitted.’’
Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee (supra), the Bench noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal and thus confirmed the addition made by the AO. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:-
‘’5. Decision: I have carefully considered the assessment order and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant filed her return of income for AY
2014-15 on 12.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,85,890/-
Thereafter the appellant's case was selected for Limited
Scrutiny thorough CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment proceedings vide order u/s 143(3) with following additions:
Addition of Rs.5,52,000/- on account of unverified time deposits
Addition of Rs. 11,94,4376 on account of undeclared interest income.
6
3. Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of investment in Mutual Funds from undisclosed sources.
Aggrieved from the above, the appellant filed the present appeal.
1 Ground No. 1: This ground is related to all the above additions mentioned by the AO. In this regard it is seen that as per the information received from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, by the AO, the appellant had made Time Deposits amounting to Rs.45,52,000/- Also, the appellant-had made investment of Rs.2,00,000/- in Mutual Funds during the year. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted that she had sold an immovable property for sales consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- in F.Y. 2012-13 and the above investments in Time Deposits and Mutual Funds are out of the amount received as sales consideration. However, the AO noted that the amount of sales consideration received by the appellant was Rs.40,00,000/- and the amount of Time deposit was Rs. 45,52,000/-. Thus, the source of the difference amount of Rs. 5,52,000/- remains unexplained. Also, the source of Rs.2,00,000/- investment in Mutual Funds remains unexplained. In view of the above, the AO added the above mentioned amounts to the total income of the appellant.
1.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant vide statement of facts claimed that the said investments were out of the sales proceeds and her pension income and also from the money received from her sons. However, the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of her claim even after being provided with multiple opportunities. Hence, the additions of Rs.5,52,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-made by the AO are upheld.
1.2 The AO further noted that during the year under consideration, the appellant eamed interest income of Rs.11,94,437/- from various banks accounts maintained by her. However, the appellant had shown interest income of only Rs.53,909/- in her return of income. Hence, the AO proposed in 7 SMT. PUSHPA UPADHYAY VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR the assessment order that difference amount of Rs. 11,40,528/- should be added to the total income of the appellant. However, in the subsequent para, the AO added the total amount of Rs.11,94,437/- in the total income of the appellant. Hence, the AO is directed to limit the addition on account of interest income to Rs.11,40,528/- and modify the calculation accordingly.
1.3 In view of the above, the ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is partly allowed.
2 Ground No. 2: This ground is general in nature and does not need separate adjudication. Hence, this ground is dismissed.
In result, the appeal is dismissed.’’
2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal and he passed an ex-parte order without providing opportunity of hearing to the assesse. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that his case may kindly be restored to the file of AO for afresh adjudication and the assessee will submit all the documents before the AO to settle dispute in question. 3.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is not required to repeat the facts of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has narrated the entire facts of the case (supra) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee did not pursue the case before him and also not advanced the documents, explanation/ evidence to support the grounds of appeal
8
SMT. PUSHPA UPADHYAY VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR raised before him. It is also noticed from the assessment order that the AO had passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made the following additions.
(a) On account of investment in MF
Rs. 2,00,000
(b) On account of alleged unverified time deposits
Rs. 5,52,000
(c) On account of alleged undeclared interest income
Rs. 11,40,528
It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, she could not put forth her defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing her case.
However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3.4
Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /09/2025. ¼xxu Xkks;y ½
¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½
(Gagan Goyal)
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/09/2025
*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Smt. Pushpa Upadhyay, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 896/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत