M/S RAVI SURYA DEV INFRASTRUCTURE LLP,JAIPUR V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 964/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP against the orders of the ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were initially filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant argued that the delay was due to non-service of notices under section 250 of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A). The tribunal found that the notices were not properly served at the given address and deemed it fit to condone the delay. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had not complied with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer regarding the assessments. Consequently, the tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, imposing costs on the appellant for non-compliance with the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776854 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL; REGISTERED POST
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Non compliance

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, K-48, Himmat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT, Central circle-3, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAWFR6279G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :16/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . This common order is to dispose of the above captioned two appeals, as common issues are involved, and Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department have put forth respective submissions, simultaneously referring to the subject matter of each appeal. 2. It may be mentioned here that ITA No. 963/JPR/2025 was reportedly filed after 145 days of the prescribed period of limitation, whereas ITA No. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. 964/JPR/2025, came to be filed after 176 days of the prescribed period of limitation. On the point of delay, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that due to non service of the notices u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the office of Learned CIT(A) at the given address, the appellant could not get knowledge of passing of the impugned orders, and as such, the delay in filing of the two appeals may be condoned. 3. The applications seeking condonation of delay are supported by affidavit of Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar, one of the partners of the applicant LLP. 4. Ld. DR for the department has submitted that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the two appeals, and as such, the applications deserve to be dismissed, and consequently, the appeals also deserve to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5. A perusal of Form 35 would reveal that in column no. 17, the appellant mentioned that notices may be sent to the given address of Himmat Nagar, Jaipur. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that notices were sent by the office of Learned CIT(A) at the email address, given in the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. first column of Form 35, and also shown as primary email ID, and at the another email ID, which was shown as secondary email ID. In this regard, no submission has been put forth by Ld. DR for the department. Even otherwise, when the address of Himmat Nagar, Jaipur was submitted in Form 35, notices u/s 250 of the Act were supposed to have been got served at the given address. However, department has not produced on record any document to suggest that service of any notice was effected, at the given address of Himmat Nagar, Jaipur. In the situation, we deem it a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. 6. A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that all the notices purported to have been sent to the assessee were not complied with by the assessee. As already submitted by ld. AR for the appellant, non of the notices was served at the address of Himmat Nagar, However, as regards the impugned order relating to assessment year 2019-20, Learned CIT(A) has nowhere specifically mentioned about service of any notice upon the assessee by registered post. As regards, other impugned order, relating to the assessment year 2018-19, Learned CIT(A) has mentioned in para 3.2 about dispatch of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. notice dated 15.10.2024, to the assessee by Speed Post . However, in said para, it has not been specified that said notice was served upon the assessee. 7. In the given situation, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. Ld. DR for the appellant has pointed out that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In the course of arguments, ld. AR for the appellant has not disputed that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings. 9. We have gone through the two assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessment years under consideration and taken note of the issues involved. We find that for adjudication of the said issue, in the interest of justice, another opportunity be granted to the assessee of being heard. At the same time, we find it just and proper to burden the appellant with costs for non compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view, the issue involved, Ld. DR for he Department has also submitted that both appeals may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for effective adjudication of the issues involved, after verification of all the relevant documents. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. Result 10. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes, and both the matters relating to the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. For non compliance with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant is burdened with costs of Rs. 2500/- in each appeal. The appellant to deposit the said amount of costs in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” and produce the receipt before the Assessing Officer, before commencement of the proceedings on remand. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of this common order be placed in the file of the connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼xxu xks;y½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 17/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 963 & 964/JPR/2025 M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. 1. The Appellant- M/s Ravi Surya Dev Infrastructure LLP, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-3, 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.963 & 964/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "