MITALI GUPTA SHAIKH,PUNE V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

ITA 136/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mitali Gupta Shaikh against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed her appeal on grounds of delay and upheld the addition of Rs. 38,38,750 as income received from retirement benefits, which she claimed was exempt under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed in the wrong jurisdiction (Jaipur) despite the assessee's PAN and address being linked to Maharashtra and Pune respectively. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, noted the jurisdictional error and directed the transfer of the case to the Pune bench.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314185 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: S.L. JAIN; ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA; LD. ARS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 136/JPR/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) MITALI GUPTA SHAIKH, 17, Bank House, R.B.I. Flats, Backbay Reclamation, Near Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AMVPS 6633C ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, Circle-07, Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. S. L. Jain, Adv. & Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv., Ld. ARs Respondent by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Ld. DR Date of hearing : 08/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 08/05/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 05.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing an appeal. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 38,38,750/-, being income received by the appellant as retirement benefit which is an exempt income u/s. 10 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 3) The learned Assessing Officer has not taken into account the revised /corrected return of income filed u/s. 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Ack. no. 472324380080519, filing date May 8, 2019). The original ITR was defective due to an inadvertent error. The appellant erroneously included the 'Income exempt under Section 10 of other allowances', under the head \"Salary\". 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard on the basis of merits of the case. Hence, we seek another opportunity of being heard before CIT (A), NFAC on the basis of merits in the interest of natural justice. 5) Appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw or delete the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.” 2. In this matter it is brought to our notice by the Ld. DR., that the PAN of the assessee appellant is based at Maharashtra, i.e. with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Pune. We have gone through the record available before us and it is observed that the submission of the Ld. DR. is correct as far as PAN of the assessee appellant is concerned. 3. The assessee herself has shown address of Pune in the return of income of filed vide intimation issued by the CPC, Bengaluru and Mumbai vide order of the ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Noida. Still, the appeal is being filed before the Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, which is against the territorial jurisdiction assigned to this bench. 4. In view of these facts, the registry is directed to transfer the matter to the appropriate bench at Pune for further action and appropriate hearing on the matter. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 8th day of May 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARINDER KUMAR) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur,\u0001दनांक/Dated: 08/05/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ूितवाद\u0011/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु\u0016 CIT 4. \u0017वभागीयूितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 08.05.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 08.05.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order "