RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

ITA 22/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 February 2024AY 2014-1515 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was to be allowed for statistical purposes. The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal electronically. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, noting that the physical appeal was filed on 25.01.2017, while the e-filing was done on 17.12.2018, a delay of nearly two years. The assessee had cited technical problems as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs ITO, which in turn relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically within 10 days. The delay in e-filing was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the additions made under Section 68 and 69C.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajesh Agarwal, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order dated 25.12.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur, for assessment year 2014-15. The assessment order had made additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a physical appeal on 25.01.2017 and an online appeal on 17.12.2018. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as belated, noting a delay of nearly two years and the absence of specific reasons or a condonation request. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period in paper form and that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing it without considering the merits or following principles of natural justice, relying on jurisdictional ITAT precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation under Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, considering it was filed physically within the prescribed period but electronically much later. - Assessee's contention: The appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period in paper form, and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing it without considering the merits or following principles of natural justice, citing jurisdictional ITAT precedents. - Revenue's contention: The appeal was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 249(2) of the Act, with a delay of nearly two years, and no specific reasons for delay or request for condonation were provided. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Income Tax Act were justified. - Assessee's contention: The assessment proceedings were based on observations from a survey against a stockbroker without corroborative evidence related to the appellant's transactions. The additions were made on ostensible facts, presumptions, surmises, and conjectures against statutory provisions. The AO erred in applying Section 68 and 69 based on third-party statements without considering the assessee's circumstances. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 69C,Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)
For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Hearing: 14/02/2024Pronounced: 19/02/2024

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28.11.2023 [Here in after referred as “CIT(A)/NFAC”] for the assessment year 2014-15, which in turn arise from the order dated 25.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [

here in after referred as “Act” ] by ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur.

2.

The assessee has marched this appeal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →