DAMODAR PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

ITA 65/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Damodar Prasad Sharma against the order of the Learned CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal as barred by limitation. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer included a substantial addition to the appellant's income, categorizing it as 'net short term capital gain' from the sale of immovable property. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to his previous Authorized Representative's failure to inform him about the assessment order and notices. The department opposed the appeal, citing the appellant's non-participation in the assessment proceedings and the absence of sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469956 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Damodar Prasad Sharma 6, Lala Patel Ke Dhani, chainpura, Malviya Nagar, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO Ward No. 6(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BPWPS3774K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :27/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . By way of present appeal, assessee has challenged order dated 11.12.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2 ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee herein. Appellant was in appeal before Learned CIT(E) feeling aggrieved by order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. Vide assessment order dated 16.03.2023, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,00,000/-, by making addition of the equal amount by way of ”net short term capital gain”, as regards sale of immovable property on on 14.02.2018 i.e. during the year under consideration, to M/s Subash Homes Private Limited. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed there on the ground that same was barred by limitation, there being delay of 110 days, as the appeal was filed on 03.08.2023 even though the impugned order was served on 15.04.2023. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee did not inform the assessee of the assessment order as well as notices. He has further submitted that the appellant came to know of this fact in the first week of July, 2023, when he applied for a loan and in that regard the bank officials informed that his ITR for the last 2-3 years had not been e-verified, and as such, same was 3 ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO invalid. As further submitted, It was thereupon that the assessee engaged some other counsel, and the said counsel informed the assessee about non filing of appeal against the assessment order and also the outstanding demand. Ld. AR for the appellant has thus contended that the appeal deserves to be heard on merits, but Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the same in limine, even though there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. Ld. DR for the department has referred to the assessment order and pointed out that the appellant did not participate even in the assessment proceedings, despite several opportunities and issuance of notices, and as such, there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, Learned DR has urged that there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. 8. A perusal of Form 35 submitted before Learned CIT(A) would reveal that the assessee-appellant furnished therein address and e-mail address for the purpose of service of notices. The e-mail ID was [e-mail]. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed of the above said email ID and issuance of notices and the impugned order from the office of Learned CIT(A). 4 ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 9. As is available from the assessment order dated 16.03.2023, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022, intimation letter dated 17.08.2023; notice u/s 142(1) on 07.01.2023; letter dated 28.01.2023; show cause notice u/s 144 on 18.02.2023 followed by another show cause notice dated 02.02.2023. The Assessing Officer observed in the assessment order that despite service of notice u/s 148 of the Act no return of income was furnished by the assessee. He also specifically mentioned about non compliance of the other directions contained in the notices/letters issued from time to time. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 82,00,000/-. 10. In the course of arguments, Ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed issuance of the communications/notices/letters, as find mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order. 11. As regards the ground put forth for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), the appellant has not placed on record any affidavit of the concerned AR. The assessee has also neither alleged that he moved any complaint against the said AR, who failed to inform him of the proceedings. Learned CIT(A) rightly observed that the appellant did not even name the said ld. AR who failed to discharge his duties. Learned 5 ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO CIT(A) was also justified in observing that it was the duty of the appellant to be diligent, even though he had authorized someone to represent him in the assessment proceedings. 12. However, taking into consideration the nature of the issues involved, we deem it a fit case to allow the request of AR for the appellant for restoration of the proceedings before Learned CIT(A) for effective adjudication of the matter on merits. 13. For the delay and non diligence on the part of the assessee-appellant in the filing the appeal there, we deem it a fit case to burden him with costs. Having regard to the non- diligence in filing of the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, we impose cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Cost to be deposited in “Prime Minister National Relief Funds”. Result 14. In view of the above findings, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while deciding the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Learned CIT(A), we hereby restore the appeal to the files of Learned CIT(A) for decision on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and that too, in accordance with law. 6 ITA No. 65/JPR/2025 Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 15. Copy of receipt in proof of deposit of costs to be produced before Learned CIT(A) before commencement of the proceedings on remand. 16. File of appeal be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward No. 6(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 65/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "