ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1368/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Anil Kumar Nandwana against the assessment order for the year 2013-14, which was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that it was not a valid appeal due to alleged delays and deficiencies. The Tribunal examined the circumstances under which the appeal was dismissed and found that the appeal had been filed within the correct timeframe and that the deficiencies cited by the CIT(A) were not valid as they were not communicated to the correct email address of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28413 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV HARSH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “ B ” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJhujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1368/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Anil Kumar Nandwana Boharo Ka Mohalla, Bagru, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 7 (2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPN 3129 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 24 /03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER On 16-09-2024, an appeal filed by the appellant – assessee before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2013-14 came to be dismissed while observing that the appeal was not a valid appeal. This brings the assessee before this Appellate Tribunal. 2 ITA NO. 1368/JPR/ 2024 ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 2. The appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), feeling aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15-03-2016, passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, and thereby computing the total income of the applicant at Rs.9,13,000/- and long term capital gain at Rs.57,60,740/-, for the reasons recorded therein. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. ld.AR for the appellant has submitted that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appeal filed there was presented beyond prescribed period of limitation i.e after 65 days’ delay, whereas, actually there was no delay as the applicant had initially presented Form 35 manually within prescribed period of limitation. In support of his contentions, the ld.AR for the appellant presented before the Bench, in the course of arguments, copy of memorandum of appeal presented manually in the office of Ld. CIT(A). 5. Above said memorandum of appeal was manually presented on 18-04-2016. The impugned assessment order is dated 15-03-2016. As finds mentioned in Form No.35, said order was served on the assessee on 20-3-2016. 6. Learned DR for the department has pointed out that there were deficiencies in the appeal presented before Learned CIT(A), and despite notices issued, the appellant did not make good the deficiencies, and as such, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal observing that same was not a valid appeal. 3 ITA NO. 1368/JPR/ 2024 ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 7. As regards non compliance with notices issued by the office of Ld. CIT(A), to make deficiencies good, Ld. AR for the appellant has rightly pointed out that from the screen shots of said notices taken from the income tax portal, same appear to have been issued at some e-mail ID, other than the one which finds mentioned in Form No.35. In this situation, no fault can be attributed to the appellant in non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) in response to the notices. 8. Record reveals that as observed by Learned CIT(A), Form 35 filed on 23-06- 2016, was incomplete as there was no mention of grounds of appeal. In this regard, the ld.AR for the appellant has rightly pointed out that in para 13 of copy of Form 35, which forms part of the appeal presented before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal, 04 grounds find mentioned therein. In view of the said grounds in the said column, it cannot be said that said appeal suffered from any such deficiency. In this situation, it cannot be said that the same was barred by limitation. 9. As a result, we find that ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal presented by the assessee, without any legal ground. Result 10. For the above reasons and findings, present appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and consequently, the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) is restored to its original number with direction that same shall be disposed of by 4 ITA NO. 1368/JPR/ 2024 ANIL KUMAR NANDWANA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Learned CIT(A) afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. File be consigned to the record room, after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24 /03/2025 *Mishra, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Anil Kumar Nandwana, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1368/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "