MAHIPAL,GURGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), ALWAR

ITA 138/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahipal, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the year 2010-11, which assessed his income at Rs. 80,00,000 due to undisclosed cash deposits. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred and for lack of documentary evidence. Mahipal argued that he did not receive the notice from the Assessing Officer due to it being sent to an incorrect address, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the appellant's claims or the relevant records before rejecting the plea for condonation of delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47147 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 144

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. 138/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mahipal House No. 310, Village Pathredi, Tehsil Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana. cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Alwar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:BOSPM2429C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . On 03.12.2024, as regards assessment year 2010-11, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, which he had preferred while challenging assessment order dated 2 ITA No. 138/JPR/2025 Mahipal vs. ITO 22.11.2017 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The appeal stands dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and also because no documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate the grounds of appeal. 3. Taking into consideration undisclosed cash deposits, the Assessing Officer had assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 80,00,000/-,. 4. Before Learned CIT(A), the assessee claimed that no notice issued by the Assessing Officer was received by the assessee, the same having been sent at wrong address, and as such the appeal could not be filed before Learned CIT(A) within prescribed period of limitation. 5. Learned CIT(A) while, dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, observed that there was no sufficient cause, which prevented the appellant from presenting appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Firstly, the applicant was required to establish the averments put forth while seeking condonation of delay. In this regard, the 3 ITA No. 138/JPR/2025 Mahipal vs. ITO appellant should have submitted all the relevant documents. No such document has been submitted before us. At the same time, while dealing with said plea Learned CIT(A) was required to refer to the relevant record pertaining to service to notices by A.O., and relating to communication of the copy of the order dated 22.12.2017 to the assessee. In absence of any discussion, before rejection of the plea on the point of condonation of delay, it cannot be said as to what led learned CIT(A) to form an opinion that there was no sufficient cause which prevented him from filing of the appeal within 30 days. In the given situation, notwithstanding absence on behalf of the appellant or non production of material for justification of the delay, we deem it a fit case, to set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) and to remand the matter to Learned CIT(A) for afresh decision, firstly, on the point of condonation of delay. Result 6. As a result, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), we remand the matter to Learned CIT(A) for afresh decision, firstly, on the point of condonation of delay, and in case, it is found that there was sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from presenting 4 ITA No. 138/JPR/2025 Mahipal vs. ITO the appeal within stipulated period, then to decide the appeal on merits. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2025. 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:- 07/04/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Mahipal, Gurgaon, Haryana. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar. 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. 138/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "