PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was accepted by the bench. The assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A).
Held
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and cooperate in the proceedings, and a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed. The decision on merits will be adjudicated by the AO.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and restoration of the case to the AO for a fresh decision.
Sections Cited
Section 249(4)(b) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 492/JP/2024
1 ITA NO. 492/JP/2024 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 492/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma cuke The ITO Vs. 11-1-D, Rail Vihar, Sector-9 Ward 4(2) Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APZPS 6301 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/05/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 28-12-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising grounds of appeal at Form No. 36.
2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 49 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit praying therein that he
2 ITA NO. 492/JP/2024 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2) , JAIPUR remained mostly on tour and could not see the e-mail and thus it has escaped from his attention to see the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that it was also the bona fide mistake of the staff and thus the appeal could not be filed in time. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay made by the assesse in filing the appeal. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the reason submitted by the assessee in his application for condonation of delay has merit and the same is condoned. 2.4 The Bench heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and found that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had failed to fulfill the mandatory and essential conditions for admission of appeal before him as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Although, before the Bench, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the detailed written submission and submitted that that Section 249(4)(b) of the Act is not applicable in his case as the assessee had not admitted any income for the relevant assessment year.
3 ITA NO. 492/JP/2024 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2) , JAIPUR 2.5 Be that as it may since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth is defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, I am of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
4 ITA NO. 492/JP/2024 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 4(2) , JAIPUR
3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /05/2024.
Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28 /05/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 492/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
