Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged a CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12, filing the appeal with a 25-day delay. The delay was attributed to the death of their previous counsel, Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain (on 30.05.2021), who they claimed handled the appeal and whose email ID was allegedly used for serving the impugned order dated 13.03.2025. The department highlighted that the email ID on Form 35 was different and the counsel's engagement was not formally proven.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the short delay in filing the appeal. On merits, considering the previous counsel's demise and the unresolved issue of notice communication, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, disposing of the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of a 25-day delay in filing the appeal and the proper communication of the CIT(A)'s order, particularly in light of the previous counsel's demise and conflicting email IDs.
Sections Cited
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. 965/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee-appellant-applicant has challenged order dated 13.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2011-12. Appeal came to be presented on 25.06.2025. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, the appeal came to be filed 25 days after M/s Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, Assessee-applicant has filed an application while seeking condonation of delay.
Heard on the point of condonation of delay. File perused.
Ld. AR for the applicant-applicant has submitted that for the purpose of appeal before CIT(A), the assessee firm had engaged Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain, but said counsel left this world on 30.05.2021, and as such, the applicant had no information or knowledge about the impugned order, dated 13.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A). So, the prayer is that the appeal be admitted.
Application is supported by an affidavit of Shri Om Prakash, partner of the applicant firm wherein he has testified about factum of death of the previous counsel of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain. Copy of death certificate of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain has also been submitted, which depicts date of death as 30.05.2021.
Impugned order would reveal that three notices were issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) to the appellant firm, the last one being of 04.03.2025. As noticed above, the counsel stated to have been earlier engaged by the assessee firm left this world on 30.05.2021.
M/s Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. In the application, the applicant partner has alleged that copy of the impugned order was served on email ID of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain. As is available from Form 35, following email ID was provided for communication of notices: “rankareturns@gmail.com” No email ID of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain finds mentioned in Form 35. Name of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain does not find mention in this Form. No document has been filed in proof of the fact that Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain was engaged by the assessee for the purposes of appeal before Learned CIT(A). In this situation, Learned AR for the appellant-applicant has filed to explain that email ID of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain was available on the portal, as the first option, and that is how, copy of the impugned order came to be dispatched on the said email ID. Significant to note that in Form 35 there are columns meant for addresses/email addresses, on which the notices are sought to be communicated to the appellant. In this situation, the department is required to communicate notices/orders on the said email ID opted by the appellant in Form 35.
M/s Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. In this case, no submission has been put forth on behalf of the appellant-applicant that the three notices or the impugned order were/were not communicated at the email ID available in Form 35, which is of rankareturns@gmail.com. Applicant was required to explain this aspect, but there is no explanation in this regard.
Be that as it may, when delay is of a short period, without probing any further, in the given situation, we deem it a fit case to admit the appeal. It is ordered accordingly. On Merits 7. While referring to the above factum of death of Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain, the counsel claimed to have been earlier engaged by the assessee for the purposes of appeal before CIT(A), and non communication of the last notice dated 04.03.2025, AR for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, so that the appellant is able to put forth its case there.
Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the restoration of the appeal before Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh.
In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to restore the appeal before Learned CIT(A), for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee-appellant.
M/s Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. Result 10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose, and the matter is referred to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard, 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 26/08/2025.