VEENA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

That during the limitation period the counsel of the assessee Shri Saurav Harsh could not be communicated with the assessee appellant because assessee migrated to Gurugram Haryana and due to which the counsel lost the communication with the assessee appellant.

That assessee during the end of the limitation period, the counsel after many efforts succeed in communication with the assessee appellant after seeks instruction from the assessee, he assessee filed the appeal without any further delay with this background, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lenient and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances. That in these circumstances we request your honour’s to kindly condone the delay and oblige.”

During the course of hearing, the ld. DR did not object to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit in the interest of justice as delay is of four day’s only.

We have heard the contentions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of four days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus, the delay of four days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and from filing appeals by “sufficient cause”.

Before moving to the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in on the following grounds; “1 Ground!. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(E) grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. assessing officer. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in issuing Notice u/s 148 and in making a reassessment of the assessee when there was no basis for reopening and proceeding are unjustified and bad in law.

Succinctly, the facts as culled from the records are that in this case, return of income was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Income Act 1961 on 26.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,250/-. Subsequently, on possession of Information regarding purchase of capital assets and luxuries car during the year by the assessee, necessary reasons were recorded and after obtaining approval of Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur on 27.03.2018, the case was ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur which was served upon the assessee through Regd. Post and the assessee was required to furnish return of income within the stipulated time but compliance of the same was not made. Thereafter, upon change of incumbent and in order to complete the proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 20.09.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 26.09.2018 but compliance of the same was not made. Another notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 05.10.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 15.10.2018 but compliance of the same was also not made.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer passed ex- parte, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued the assessee notices on almost five occasions, and only on one occasion, the assessee sought adjournment and rest all notices were not complied with. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on information available to him. Since the assessee did not produce any evidence, in the appellate proceeding on the grounds so raised before him, he confirmed the addition stating that the assessee had not filed any material so as to deviate from the finding of Assessing Officer.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The Bench notes that the assessee filed her return of income voluntarily. The revenue got information about the sale of property and purchase of luxuries cars by the assessee whereupon the only addition, being the entire sale proceeds of the property, was made to her income. The assessee having already filed her ITR voluntarily, but having not complied with the re- assessment proceedings for compelling reasons, and considering the prayer of the assessee based on the facts, we are of the view that if the assessee is given one more chance in the interest of justice, there will be a substantial justice in assessing ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and pass order a fresh after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and shall remain cooperative in the proceedings before ld. AO.

The facts of the case in are similar to the case in ITA No. 375/JP/2024. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 376/JP/2024 are similar on the same set of facts and grounds.