RUKMANI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD-7(2), 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. 1446/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AWLPD 2180 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA. & Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Adv.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR.
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 18 /02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 20//02/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
On 12-08-2024, an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, (for short ‘’Act) relating to assessment year 2011-12, was passed by Learned CIT(A), thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and sustaining the assessment dated 01-
11-2018 framed by the Assessing Officer.
2
2. Vide impugned assessment, the AO computed total income of the assessee at Rs.70,07,908/- by making an addition of Rs.66,81,000/- to the income declared by the assessee.
3. The assessee is feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the ld.
CIT(A) and as such, she has come up in appeal.
4. As reported by Registry, the appeal is barred by limitation of 29 days.
Alongwith appeal, the assessee also presented an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same.
5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 12-08-2024 and the appeal was presented on29-11-2024. While arguing in the first instance, on the application seeking condonation of delay, ld AR for the applicant has submitted that the assessee is an old and illiterate lady whose return of incomes were being maintained by her husband.
Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that it was on 27-11-2024 that husband of the applicant enquired from the previous Tax Professional dealing with her tax matter, about the status of appeal filed before the ld CIT(A), and only then she came to know that appeal stood already dismissed on 12-08-2024. 3
Further, it has been submitted that on 27-11-2024 itself, the assessee engaged some other Tax Professional, who helped in filing of the appeal on 29-11-
2024. Therefore, the ld. AR has urged that keeping in view the abovesaid reasons, the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned.
6. In the course of arguments, the ld. DR for the Revenue has not opposed prayer made on behalf of the applicant seeking condonation of delay.
7. As noticed above, the appeal has been filed 29 days after the prescribed period for filing of the appeal.
In the application, the applicant has alleged that e-mail-ID amanjindl4949@gmail.com of previous Tax Professional was provided to the Department, on its income tax portal, but said professional did not apprise the assessee of the outcome of the appeal.
8. On going through
Form
35, we find that the e-mail-ID guptavijayincometax@gmail.com was furnished for the purposes of communication of notices etc. Therein, the above-said e-mail ID i.e.
amanjindl4949@gmail.com does not find mention.
Present appeal as well as application have been drafted and presented through CA Shri Vijay Gupta who has also argued the matter before us. It is his e- mail ID which was furnished in Form 35 i.e. for the purpose of communication of 4
9. Surprisingly, in the application, Shri Vijay Gupta has nowhere mentioned for the reasons best known to him, that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was presented through him and it was his e-mail-ID that was furnished in Form 35. 10. Be that as it may, we find that this is a case where assessee who is an old illiterate lady, cannot be allowed to suffer because of non-communication of order by her CA, apprising about dismissal of her appeal.
11. Consequently, we condone delay of 29 days in filing of this appeal.
12. Arguments have been advanced by both the sides even in appeal on merits.
File perused.
13. In the course of arguments, the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us is that the assessment order deserves to be set aside, the reason being that the AO never disposed of objections filed by the assessee whereby he had sought reasons for reopening of the case and initiation of proceedings u/s 148
16. In view of all this, there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant that reasons for reopening of the assessment were not supplied to the assessee. At the same time, we express our displeasure that at the time of final arguments, AR representing the appellant raised a contention, which is against record.
17. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that in para 7.2 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) made observations Same are reproduced, and read as under:-
‘7.2. ……..Appellant had not only non-complied to the statutory notices issued to him by the AO during assessment proceedings but as pointed out above nothing was submitted during the appellate proceedings also, in spite of three notices issued in the last three years. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the 6
07.09.2018 & 03.10.2018 requiring compliance on 18.07.2018,
18.09.2018 & 08 10.2018 respectively However, no compliance was made by the appellant. Hence, a final show cause notice dated 17 10.2018 was also issued through speed post and requested to furnish documents in respect of sold immovable property for Rs. 46,50,000/- and Rs. 20,31,000/- The total income of Rs. 66,81,000 on which the capital Gain arisen was not disclosed for taxation under the provisions of the income tax Act, 1961 The above immovable property is a capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2(14) of the income tax Act, 1961 as the above immovable property is situated within limits of Jaipur municipal corporation Jaipur However, the appellant did not submit documentary evidences either in assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings
Therefore, the contention of the appellant is factually incorrect and misleading.’’
From the above observations, it transpires that despite opportunity, the appellant did not produce relevant information or documents before Learned She is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Costs to be deposited by the appellant in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund before commencement of the proceedings before Learned CIT(A), and its receipt to be produced there.
8
Order pronounced in the open court on 20 / 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 20 /02/2025
9
*Mishra, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Smt. Rukmani Devi, 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.1446/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत