MEENAKSHI YADAV,AHMEDABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1558/AHD/2024

AI Insights

Meenakshi Yadav appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed her appeal due to a 17-day delay in filing. The original assessment for the year 2018-19 included a re-assessment that allegedly double-counted her property investment. The Tribunal noted the assessee's unfamiliarity with the technical procedures of the assessment process as a reasonable cause for the delay. It also highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the re-assessment proceedings and the correct valuation of the property transaction, which was reportedly entered twice in the system.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474037 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDIK VORA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1558/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Yadav, J-804, Sorrel Apartments, Applewoods Township, SP Ring Road, Shela, Ahmedabad-380058. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad. [PAN No.ACJPY7040B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR Respondent by: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in passing order within discussing the grounds on merits. ITA No.1558/Ahd/2024 Meenakshi Yadav vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering that there was delay of only 17 days in filing an appeal for the reason that assessee was not aware of the re- assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without providing an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming initiation of re-assessment proceedings. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering that assessee had jointly purchased only one property during the year for a consideration of Rs.62,55,841/- and the alleged amount of Rs.1,25,11,682/- is a clerical error as same transaction is reflected twice on the insight portal. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering that property is purchased out of income earned by her husband and ICIC Bank loan. 8. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any grounds(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A), owing to delay of 17 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee submitted that she is not well-versed with the technical procedure of assessment proceeding and therefore could not check her mails or Income- tax E-portal. However, having known about the passing of order, the assessee had filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the assessee had reasonable cause and delay of 17 days shall not prejudice the rights of the assessee to redress her grievances before the first appellate authority. Further, we also find that that the AO has passed order u/s.144 of Act and made addition twice, the amount of investment made by the assessee. ITA No.1558/Ahd/2024 Meenakshi Yadav vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– Hence, it was prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance will be made before the revenue authorities. Hence, the matter is being remand back to the AO for looking in to issue in toto and pass the order de novo. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 03.01.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "