PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 76/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pawan Kumar Sharma, the appellant, who contested an assessment order from the Income Tax Department, which included unexplained money and short-term capital gains totaling Rs. 51,84,000 for the assessment year 2012-13. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to the appellant's failure to provide corroborative evidence. The appellant sought condonation for the delay in filing the appeal, citing health issues. The tribunal, after considering the medical evidence and the circumstances, allowed the condonation of delay but imposed costs. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer due to the appellant's non-compliance in previous proceedings, with an additional cost imposed for negligence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35322 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: GORAV SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 144; 69A

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. 76/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pawan Kumar Sharma 10 Ganpati Nagar, Near 200 Feet By- pass, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AZAPS3717R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Gorav Sharma, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 26/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . On 31.03.2024, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as regards assessment order dated 13.11.2019, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessment order reflects that total taxable income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 51,84,000/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the 2 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by making additions of Rs. 12,14,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, due to unexplained money , and of Rs. 39,70,000/-, because of short term capital gain to the assessee. 3. Assessee challenged above said assessment order, but Learned CIT(A) dismissed the same, while observing that the assessee had failed to discharge his onus by producing corroborative evidence either during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. At this stage it may be mentioned here that the appeal having presented on 21.01.2025, the Registry made a deficiency note that it was barred by limitation having been filed after 235 days of the prescribed period. To seek condonation of delay, assessee has filed an application. During pendency of the matter, the assessee his filed a fresh attested affidavit dated 12.03.2025. 6. On the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the assessee- applicant has submitted that the applicant was unwell and as such he remained under treatment of three different doctors, who advised him complete bed rest from 19.07.2024 to 25.07.2024, 03.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 & 05.11.2024 to 19.11.2024. 3 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO 7. Ld. AR for the applicant-assessee has referred to the affidavit of the applicant in order to justify the delay in filing of the appeals beyond the prescribed period. As submitted by Ld. AR, the assessee was suffering from various diseases like Ulcerative colitis, spinal card paid and spondylities, as well as blood pressure, hypertension. He has further submitted that the assessee- applicant is still not keeping good health. Accordingly, Ld. AR has requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 8. As noticed above, the impugned order was passed by Learned CIT(A) dated 31.03.2024. Admittedly, the appeal was to be filed within 60 Days of the date of communication of the impugned order. 9. The assessee-applicant has submitted certain photo copies. Firstly, there is photocopy of medical certificate for the period from 19.07.2024 to 25.07.2024, issued by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Govind Nagar (West), Jaipur. Surprisingly, this certificate does not bear date of its issuance. It is not believable that Medical Officer of government hospital would issue any medical certificate without writing the date of its issuance. 10. Then there is a prescription slip dated 03.10.2024 issued by Shri Balaji Doctor’s Chamber & diagnostic Center. As per this slip, the patient 4 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO complained of pain in spine and accordingly, he was advised medicines and medical bed rest. However, there is no mention that the assessee-applicant was advised complete bed rest. Even the period of bed rest does not find mention in this prescription slip. 11. Photocopy of another medical certificate purported to have been signed by Dr. Lokesh Sharma has also been submitted. It pertains to the period from 05.11.2024 to 19.11.2024. However, this certificate also does not bear the date of his issuance. Even column meant for signatures of the patient is also lying blank. 12. What kind of evidentiary value can be attached to the medical evidence submitted on behalf of the applicant on the point of condonation of delay? But, it may be mentioned here that in the course of arguments, Ld. DR for the department has not controverted the averments put forth in the affidavit of the assessee. 13. As noticed above, the dispute pertains to additions, in total to the tune of Rs. 51,84,000/-. While dismissing the appeal, Learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee-applicant had failed to produce corroborative evidence. Ld. AR 5 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO for the assessee-applicant submits that in case delay in filing of the appeal is condoned only then the assessee would be able to produce all the relevant material, which he could not produce during the appellate proceedings and also before Assessing Authority. Having regard to the issues involved, considering the affidavit of the applicant, and keeping in view the nature of medical evidence submitted by the applicant, as discussed above, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, but, subject to costs. 14. The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed, but the applicant is burdened with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited with “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”. 15. It is significant to mention that Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department advanced arguments in the appeal as well, today itself. 16. Ld. DR for the department has pointed out that during assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to file any return of income in respect to the notice u/s 148 of the Act; that he also failed to respond the show cause notice, what to say of submission of documents and other details required by the Assessing Officer. 6 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO Ld. DR has also pointed out that even in the appellate proceedings despite opportunity, the assessee failed to produce any material or document in support of his claim. 17. As noticed above, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth only one submission that opportunity of being heard be granted to the assessee to enable him to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. 18. When the assessee was non compliant in the assessment proceedings, and he failed to produce any documents even in the appellate proceedings, this shows sheer negligence on the part of the assessee- appellant. But, having regard to the issues involved, we find deem it a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. However taking into consideration sheer negligence on the part of the assessee, we deem it a fit case to burden him with additional cost of Rs. 5,000/-. We order accordingly. Result 19. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for afresh decision, in accordance with law, after affording 7 ITA No. 76/JPR/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee to deposit of additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- with “ Prime Minister National Relief Funds”. Receipts regarding deposit of the above said costs of Rs. 3,000/- and 5000/- to be produced 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2025. 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:- 27/03/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pawan Kumar Sharma, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 76/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "