ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, “ B ” JAIPUR

JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1368/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPN 3129 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 20/03/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement :
24 /03/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

On 16-09-2024, an appeal filed by the appellant – assessee before the ld.
CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-14 came to be dismissed while observing that the appeal was not a valid appeal. This brings the assessee before this Appellate Tribunal.
2. The appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15-03-2016, passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, and thereby computing the total income of the applicant at Rs.9,13,000/- and long term capital gain at Rs.57,60,740/-, for the reasons recorded therein.
3. Arguments heard. File perused.
4. ld.AR for the appellant has submitted that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appeal filed there was presented beyond prescribed period of limitation i.e after 65 days’ delay, whereas, actually there was no delay as the applicant had initially presented Form 35 manually within prescribed period of limitation.

In support of his contentions, the ld.AR for the appellant presented before the Bench, in the course of arguments, copy of memorandum of appeal presented manually in the office of Ld. CIT(A).
5. Above said memorandum of appeal was manually presented on 18-04-2016. The impugned assessment order is dated 15-03-2016. As finds mentioned in Form
No.35, said order was served on the assessee on 20-3-2016. 6. Learned DR for the department has pointed out that there were deficiencies in the appeal presented before Learned CIT(A), and despite notices issued, the appellant did not make good the deficiencies, and as such, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal observing that same was not a valid appeal.
7. As regards non compliance with notices issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A), to make deficiencies good, Ld. AR for the appellant has rightly pointed out that from the screen shots of said notices taken from the income tax portal, same appear to have been issued at some e-mail ID, other than the one which finds mentioned in Form No.35. In this situation, no fault can be attributed to the appellant in non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) in response to the notices.
8. Record reveals that as observed by Learned CIT(A), Form 35 filed on 23-06-
2016, was incomplete as there was no mention of grounds of appeal.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /03/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½

¼ujsUnz dqekj½

(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)

(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24 /03/2025

*Mishra, Sr. PS

आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Shri Anil Kumar Nandwana, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2), 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 No. 1368/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत