RUCHI JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 138 days due to the husband's leg accident. The assessee submitted medical certificates as evidence for the delay. The Revenue objected to the delay. The tribunal considered the medical records and condoned the delay.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal as the assessee failed to make submissions or produce evidence. The tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the assessee for lethargic action.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
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. 11/JP/2024
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. 11/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
cuke Smt. Ruchi Jain The ITO Vs. 10, Rajawat Farm House Ward 1(3) SFS Mansarovar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIOPJ 1336 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Singh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/03/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 20-06-2023, 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 138 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application dated 05-01-2024 for condonation of delay narrating therein her problem.
2 ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 SMT. RUCHI JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR
‘’I would like to inform you that I have received order from CIT(A) Jaipur dated 27-07-2023 and the time limit for filing appeal before Hon’ble ITAT expired on 26-09-2023 against said order. There is delay of 99 to 100 days in filing the appeal before your Honour. This delay is due to leg accident of my husband. Therefore, you are kindly requested to please condone the delay in filing appeal before ITAT’’
It is also noted that she submitted the Medical Certificate issued by Swai Man Singh Chikitsalaya, Jaipur (SMS -Govt of Rajasthan) as to treatment of his husband Shri Ashish Jain 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay made by the assessee in filing the appeal. 2.3 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the medical records of assessee’s husband and application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. From these documents, it indicates that that there is a merit in the submission of the assessee and thus in view of the submissions of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Further the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeal noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the narration as mentioned therein are as under:-
3 ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 SMT. RUCHI JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR
‘’5. In the instance of the case, the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assesee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case, the AO has rightly assessed Rs.16,65,550/- Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant’s claim and demand raised by the Assessing Officer of Rs.15,14,305/- is hereby confirmed.
Further during course of appellate proceedings assessee has failed to produce any submission/ evidence in support of his appeal proceedings. In the absence of any evidence, whatsoever, whether documentary or otherwise, I am constraints to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition. The AO has passed a reason and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed.’’
4 ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 SMT. RUCHI JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 3.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the assessee has not filed any submissions and evidences relating to the case before the ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. It is also noted that the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) while as the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The Bench feels that one more chance may be given to the Assessee to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) and the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and the assessee will submit the necessary documents / evidences concerning the above mentioned appeal. However, for lethargic and negligent action on the part of the assessee, therefore a cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee and the same shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld CIT(A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) 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. 3.3 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any
5 ITA NO. 5/JP/2024 SMT. RUCHI JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /03/2024. Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/03/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Mrs. Ruchi Jain, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(3),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. 11/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
