MOHAMMED SAHEED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD DAUSA, DAUSA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
BEFORE: DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM AND DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 659/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
Shri Mohammed Saheed
C/o R.S. Poonia, CA
D-82B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar,
Jaipur – 302 015
Ward -Dausa
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AYPPS 4404 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20-11-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [
hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13
raising therein following grounds of appeal.
‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case Id. CIT
(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the order passed by the Ld. A.O. which is liable to be quashed.
Kindly quash the same.
2
SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA
2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.
CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition Rs. 1,06,22,100/ on account of Short term capital gain. Kindly delete the same.
1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 449 days in filing appeal for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay with the prayer to condone the delay as the assessee has not received the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus delay occurred in filing the appeal before ITAT. The relevant submission as made in the application for condonation of delay is as under:- ‘’Sub: Regarding acceptance of application for condonation of delay in case of Shri Mohammed Saheed having appeal No. ITA No. 659/JPR/25 (PAN:AYPPS4404D).
Respected Members,
With reference to above subject we request you that:-
That appellant is an individual and belong to a rural area.
That appellant filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 24.04.2025 against the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC dated 20.11.2023 (i.e. with a delay of 449 days). The appeal number is ITA 659/JPR/2025. 3. That at the time of filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals), the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 for communication was CAPOONIARSNEW@GMAIL.COM (i.e. belongs appellant's counsel). to 3 SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA
That all notices and orders of CIT (Appeals) were communicated to email address of appellant's earlier counsel (i.e. CA RAMBABU GUPTA@YAHOO.COM) instead of email address given in Form No. 35. 5. That appellant and his new counsel, who filed the appeal before CIT (Appeal) was unaware about the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, dated 20.11.2023. 6. That in the month of April, 2025, appellant visited the office of his counsel regarding the status of appeal and then appellant's counsel checked the income tax portal and informed appellant about the ex- parte order of CIT (Appeals), NFAC dated 20.11.2023. 7. Then, thereafter appellant prepare and filed the appeal immediately before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 24.04.2025 against the order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC with a delay of 449 days.
That the delay of 449 days was due to unaware about the adverse order dated 20.11.2023. 9. That appellant was unaware about the adverse order passed by CIT (Appeals) and same is the bonafide reason of delay in filing of appeal which is beyond my control.
In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 449 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.’’
To this effect, the assessee Shri Mohammed Saheed (Deponent) has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
2.2
On the other hand, the ld.DR did not controvert the facts stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay.
4
SHRI MOHAMMED SAHEED VS ITO,WARD-DAUSA
2.3
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the affidavit of assessee. In this case, the Bench in nutshell noted that there is sufficient cause in not timely filing the appeal by the assessee and there is merit in the application of the assessee. Thus, the delay is condoned.
3.1
Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld .CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not made any submission before NFAC nor submitted any evidence in support of grounds of appeals. The narrations so made by the ld CIT(A) para 5.3 to para 6 of his order are reproduced as under:-
‘’5.3 As discussed above, the appellant has not made any submissions before NFAC nor submitted any evidences in support of grounds of appeal.
4 In ground of appeal No.1. the appellant has claimed that the issue of notice u/s.148 is bad in law and facts. However, it is noted that the assessment was reopened based on information available with the AO forming reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment as discussed in the assessment order Further, assessment proceedings were initiated after obtaining approval of prescribed authority and were completed after issuing of statutory notices and providing adequate opportunities to the appellant. Therefore, ground of appeal No.1 is dismissed as the claims made are not found correct
5 In ground of appeal No.2, the appellant has disputed the addition made on account of short term capital gains by merely claiming that the appellant denies the 50C value of the property and that the AO has not appreciated/considered the material available on record. However, it has not been clarified before the NFAC as to what material is being referred by the appellant in disputing the valuation done by the sub