RAN SINGH,ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BHIWADI, BHIWADI

ITA 737/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ran Singh Khalilpuri, who appealed against orders from the Learned CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appeals were initially filed with a delay of 337 days, for which condonation was sought. The tribunal found that the appellant was not properly served with the notices as required, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713179 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: TWINKLE JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ran Singh Khalilpuri, Bilashpur Tijara, Alwar. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: BKMPS3317K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Ms. Twinkle Jain, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :29/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This common order is to dispose of the above captioned both matters, as same arise out of common facts, are interlinked and have been simultaneously argued. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025 Shri. Ran Singh, Alwar. 2. It may be mentioned here that both the above said captioned appeals have been reportedly filed after a delay of 337 days i.e. beyond prescribed period of limitation. Applications seeking condonation of delay have been filed with the prayer that delay in filing of the appeals be condoned and the appeals be admitted. 3. Ld. AR for the assessee-applicant has submitted that the assessee- applicant came to know of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) in April, 2025, when he visited office of his counsel in connection with some other works, and thereafter present appeals were presented on 03.05.2025. Ld. AR has referred to the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the averments and prayer for condonation of delay. 4. On perusal of the applications seeking condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it transpires that nowhere in the applications, applicant has alleged that he came to known of the impugned order in April,2025 , when he visited the office of his counsel in connection with the same other works. In other words, this fact has been put forth for the first time in the affidavit. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025 Shri. Ran Singh, Alwar. Affidavit is a piece of evidence. Before a party is entitled to rely on the deposition in an affidavit, it is required that the fact is pleaded in the requisite application. Inadvertance is pleaded in this regard. 5. In para 2 of the affidavit, applicant has admitted service of the impugned order uploaded on the Income tax Department portal on 20.03.2024 i.e. the date of passing of the impugned order. When the applicant admits the factum of service of the impugned order on 20.03.2024 itself, it was for the appellant-applicant to explain as to what prevented him from filing of the appeals. 6. A perusal of Form 35 in each matter, would reveal that the applicant- appellant had furnished his address in column No. 17 thereof for the purpose of service of notice by the office of Learned CIT(A). On the first page of Form 35, the appellant-applicant had furnished an email address but, specified in the column next to this column that notices were not to be served on the said email address. Department has not brought any material on record to suggest regarding service of the impugned order upon the appellant-applicant at the given address, by registered post or by way of personal service. In this situation , we deem it a fit case to allow the prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025 Shri. Ran Singh, Alwar. 7. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that for the above said reason i.e. non service of notices upon the appellant-applicant at the given address, the appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings before Learned CIT(A). The only prayer made by Ld. AR that while setting aside the impugned orders, the matters may be remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision of appeals fresh, while affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee-appellant. 8. Details of the four notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A) finds mentioned at page 4 of the impugned order. From para 5 of the impugned order, it transpires that the notices were delivered at email ID provided by the appellant available with the department. As already mentioned above, the appellant had not opted for service of notices at the said email address. So, notices were to be served physically or by registered post by sending the same to the address of the appellant available in para 17 of Form 35. In the situation, both the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), deserve to be set aside. Result 9. As a result, both the appeals are allowed and while setting aside the impugned orders, the appeals filed by the assessee are restored to the files Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025 Shri. Ran Singh, Alwar. of Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Copy of common order be placed in the file of connected appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUn dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/07/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Ran Singh, Alwar. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi . 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 736 & 737/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "