DAMODAR PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 65/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BPWPS3774K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.A.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
:27/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
By way of present appeal, assessee has challenged order dated
11.12.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, u/s 250 of Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2
3. Vide assessment order dated 16.03.2023, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,00,000/-, by making addition of the equal amount by way of ”net short term capital gain”, as regards sale of immovable property on on 14.02.2018 i.e. during the year under consideration, to M/s Subash Homes Private Limited.
4. Arguments heard. File perused.
5. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed there on the ground that same was barred by limitation, there being delay of 110
days, as the appeal was filed on 03.08.2023 even though the impugned order was served on 15.04.2023. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the Authorized
Representative of the assessee did not inform the assessee of the assessment order as well as notices. He has further submitted that the appellant came to know of this fact in the first week of July, 2023, when he applied for a loan and in that regard the bank officials informed that his ITR for the last 2-3 years had not been e-verified, and as such, same was 3
8. A perusal of Form 35 submitted before Learned CIT(A) would reveal that the assessee-appellant furnished therein address and e-mail address for the purpose of service of notices.
The e-mail
ID was dpsharma.nikhil01@gmail.com.
9. As is available from the assessment order dated 16.03.2023, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022, intimation letter dated 17.08.2023; notice u/s 142(1) on 07.01.2023; letter dated 28.01.2023; show cause notice u/s 144 on 18.02.2023 followed by another show cause notice dated 02.02.2023. The Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order that despite service of notice u/s 148 of the Act no return of income was furnished by the assessee. He also specifically mentioned about non compliance of the other directions contained in the notices/letters issued from time to time.
Ultimately, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,00,000/-.
10. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed issuance of the communications/notices/letters, as find mentioned in para 2
13. For the delay and non diligence on the part of the assessee-appellant in the filing the appeal there, we deem it a fit case to burden him with costs.
Having regard to the non- diligence in filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, we impose cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Cost to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Funds”.
16. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. ¼xxu xks;y½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/03/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward No. 6(1), Jaipur.
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 65/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत