GYAN CHAND KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ADDLJCIT(A)-8 DELHI, DELHI

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 Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1203/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13

Gyan Chand Khandelwal
52-N-7 Pratap Nagar Rajasthan
Housing Board Behind Pratap
Plaza, Jaipur.
cuke
Vs.
The Addl/CIT(A)-8,
Delhi.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANFPK0529G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri K.L. Moolchandani, I.T.P.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 05/03/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 21/03/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi dated 24.07.2024 for the assessment year
2012-13, which in turn arise from the order dated 25.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as “Act” ] by the AO.
2.1
At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 1
day in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the Gyan Chand Khandelwal
2
assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :-
“With reference to the aforementioned appeal proceedings the Appellant hereby submits that for the assessment year 2012-13, I filed a second appeal before H'ble ITAT., Jaipur SMC Bench, Jaipur on 23.9.2024 against the Appeal Order passed under Section 250 of the Act on 24.7.2024, which I reviewed on 26.07.2024. Under honest belief, 1 computed a 60-day limitation period for filing the second appeal from the date of viewing the Appeal Order, which was 26.7.2024. However, the H'ble Bench informed it that the limitation period would commence on the date the order was issued, i.e. on 24.7.2024. Due to a genuine mathematical error in counting the limitation period, there was a one-day delay in presenting the Appeal to the Honorable Bench within the stipulated limitation period of 60 days.
Due to such honest and genuine circumstances, I was unable to file the Appeal within the stipulated restriction period of 60 days.
As a result, I respectfully request that the Honorable Bench excuse the delay in filing the Second Appeal in the interest of equity and natural justice and admit it for review on the merits.
We deeply regret the one-day delay in filing the Second Appeal. I have filed an affidavit under oath verifying the aforementioned facts and contentions.
Having considered the above facts, your honors may appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by honest and reasonable cause from filing the present appeal. Your honors are therefore requested to kindly condone the delay and admit the same in the interest of equity and natural justice.”

To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Gyan Chand Khandelwal
3
2.3
We have heard the contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer as mentioned above by the assessee for condonation of delay of 01 days has merit for the reason that there was miscommunication resultantly delay and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 01 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
3. The assessee has raised following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Authorities Below have factually and legally erred in making addition of Rs.7,77,941/- by disallowing the cost of Improvement in the new asset for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act in absence of supporting details and documents, without appreciating the fact that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and honest reasons from furnishing these details & documents at the given point to time.
In fact, at the given point of time, the appellant was bed-ridden and was unable to make compliance due to acute depression and ill health. In the interest of equity and natural justice, it would be equitable to admit the supporting details at this stage to decide the appeal. Having considered the supporting details and documents, the addition as made by the Authorities Below deserves to be deleted summarily.