Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed with a significant delay of 187 days and 401 days respectively due to the appellant's and her family's illnesses. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained investment and unexplained cash deposit for AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals considering the medical reasons cited by the appellant. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Costs were imposed on the appellant.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned on medical grounds and whether the matters should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
69, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH The above captioned both the appeals are being disposed of together vide common judgment, as they arise out of common facts, both the 2. Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 31.07.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby her appeal against assessment order dated 29.12.2017, relating to the assessment year 2015-16, stands dismissed.
Vide abovesaid assessment order, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- resorting to the provisions of section 69 of the Act , on account of unexplained investment .
4. Assessee-appellant has challenged other order dated 18.12.2023, passed by Learned CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby her appeal against assessment order dated 17.12.2019, relating to the assessment year 2017- 18, also stands dismissed.
Vide above assessment order, the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e. one of Rs. 91,68,704/- and the other of Rs. 91,80,000/-, on & 545/JPR/2025 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur. account of unexplained cash deposited, by resorting to the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
It may be mentioned here that the first mentioned appeal was reportedly, and admittedly, instituted after 187 days of the prescribed period of limitation. For seeking condonation of delay, the appellant has submitted an application supported by her own affidavit.
Separate application seeking condonation of delay for the purpose of present appeal has also been filed, supported by affidavit of the applicant. Contentions -On Condonation of Delay 9. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the appeals could not be filed during the prescribed period due to the illness of her father, father in law, her husband and her own illness. In this regard, Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the medical record relating to illness of applicant, illness of her husband, illness and the factum of death of her father and father in law.
Ld. DR for the department has not disputed averments put forth by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay on medical ground.
Having regard to the copies of the medical records and affidavit of the applicant herself, which go unchallenged, there being sufficient cause for & 545/JPR/2025 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur. non filing of the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of these appeals. On merits 12. Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission, and that is, that the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(A), as the assessee could not respond to the notices said to have been issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) with effect from 20.07.2023 to 01.12.2023. Ld. AR has submitted that there was non compliance to the said notices, because the appeals were presented before Learned CIT(A) by one consultant, but the assessee ultimately authorized another representative to pursue the appeals, and in this process, the representative did not apprise about the four notices issued during the period i.e. 20.07.2023 to 01.12.2023. Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the copies of four notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) i.e. on 29.11.2023, 20.12.2023, 04.07.2024 and 11.07.2024, today placed on record, in the course of arguments.
As per copies of the notices submitted today, same were sent at the email ID i.e. ca.chittora@gmail.com, whereas 3rd and 4th notices were issued at the abovesaid email address as well as at the email address of her husband, namely, Sh. Ravi Gupta.
& 545/JPR/2025 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur. As noticed above, husband of the appellant was not keeping good health. But, as regards notices issued at the above said email address i.e. ca.chittora@gmail.com. Ld. DR for the department has not disputed that in column No. 17, email address submitted for the purpose of communication of notices was “anuhal@kalanico.com” .
It is significant to note that in the first column of Form- 35 of each appeal, the appellant, while furnishing the said email address specified that notices/communications were not to be sent on the said email address. This goes to show that the appellant herself did not clarify to the department as to on which email address notices were to be sent to her. In the given situation, the department opted to issue the notices with effect from 20.07.2023 onwards at the email ID ca.chittora@gmail.com. In this situation, it was for the appellant and her authorized representative/tax consultants to be vigilant as regards communication of notice by the office of Learned CIT(A). Even after having put in appearance in reply to the notices dated 14.01.2021, 20.07.2023, no step appears to have been taken by the appellant to apprise the department, that she wanted change in the email address for the purpose of communications of notices.
& 545/JPR/2025 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Jaipur. 15. However, in the given facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the issues involved, which led to framing of two assessment orders and that the appellant could not avail of the opportunities provided by the office of Learned CIT(A), we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to Learned CIT(A), as requested by Ld. AR for the appellant.
Result 16. As a result of the above discussion, both these appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside both the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment years 2015- 16 and 2017-18 , the appeals filed before Learned CIT(A) are restored to their respective original number, with the direction that Learned CIT(A) shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and dispose of the appeals afresh, in accordance with law.
In the given situation, when the appellant-applicant and her consultant/ the authorized representative were not diligent, as observed above, we deem it a fit case to impose costs of Rs. 2500/-on the appellant, in each appeal to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”.
The applicant to deposit costs and produce the receipts before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand.