KALYAN SAHAY MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A-Bench” JAIPUR
Jh xxu Xkks;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;djvihy la-@ITA No. 16/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2008-09
Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena
Aman Dhar Ki Dhani, Terminal-2,
Sawai Getor, C-Block, Siddharth Nagar, Jagatpura cuke
Vs.
The ITO
Ward 7(2)
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:BFWPM 0124 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR.
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 26 /02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 27 /02/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present appeal came to be presented on 8-01-2025 thereby challenging the order dated 02-03-2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. Vide impugned order, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal which was filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 31-03-2016 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.
144 of the Act.
2
3. Vide assessment order dated 31-03-2016, the AO computed long term capital gain of the assessee at Rs.1,84,03,432/-, while taking into consideration the sale consideration of the immovable property u/s 50C of the Act, and deducting
Indexed Cost of Acquisition to the tune of Rs.27,550/-.
4. Since the impugned order was passed by the ld.CIT(A) of 2-03-2023, and the appeal came to be presented here on 8-1-2025, Registry recorded a deficiency note that the appeal was presented 588 days after prescribed period of limitation.
That is why, an application has been filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
5. Arguments heard. File perused..
6. On the application seeking condonation of delay, ld AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee-applicant could not participate in the appeal, after remand report was called by ld. CIT(A), as regards additional evidence, for want of service of notice on the assessee personally.
7. A perusal of Form 35 submitted before the ld.CIT(A) would reveal that E-mail ID in Column No. 17 thereof was: opagarwalandco@gmail.com’’.
In the course of arguments, the ld. AR for the applicant admits that this E- mail ID is of the Authorised Representative of the assessee, through whom the appeal was filed.
3
Having regard to the said E-mail Id of the AR of the assessee, who presented appeal before the ld.CIT(A), ld.DR for the Department has submitted that it is not the case of the applicant that notices were not served upon his AR by the Office of the ld. CIT(A) at the said E-mail ID, and there being no sufficient ground for condonation of delay, the application deserves to be dismissed.
8. Admittedly, the ld. AR of the assessee who presented before the ld .CIT(A) had given his own E-mail ID in Column No 17 for the purpose of service of notices. In this situation, it was for the AR of the assessee-appellant to explain as to why he did not apprise the assessee about the notice received in connection with remand report proceedings before the AO.
It is true that when an assessee engages some Tax Consultant or Tax
Practitioner or Advocate, as his representative to represent him in certain proceedings, it does not mean that the assessee should forget about the said proceedings or to contact the AR to acquaint himself about the progress in the said proceedings.
The assessee-applicant has not submitted any affidavit of the AR through whom appeal was filed before the ld CIT(A).
9. In the given circumstances, we deem it a fit case to allow application seeking condonation of delay, but with the direction for deposit of cost of Rs.2,500/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
10. Arguments have also been advanced on merits, today itself. File perused.
11. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in the appeal before the ld.
However, taking into consideration the negligence from the side of the assessee, as noticed above, the assessee is burdened with additional cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, with the 6
Order Pronounced in open court on 25/02/2025. (xxu Xkks;y)
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 27 /02/2025
*Mishra, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2), ,Jaipur
3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.16/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत