RUKMANI DEVI,JAIPUR V. ACIT HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1446/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Rukmani Devi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing her appeal and sustaining the assessment made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 66,81,000 to the income declared by the assessee, computing her total income at Rs. 70,07,908. The appeal was initially barred by a delay of 29 days, which the tribunal condoned, considering the circumstances of the assessee being an old and illiterate lady, and the non-communication of the order by her previous tax professional. On merits, the tribunal found that the reasons for reopening the assessment were provided to the appellant and that she had not complied with the statutory notices during the assessment proceedings. However, the tribunal allowed the appellant to produce certain documents before the CIT(A) and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on her.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472761 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GUPTA; APEKSHA KALRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 142(1); 250; 2(14); 20

Judgement Text

" vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu Xkks;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;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1446/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rukmani Devi 8, Mukhiya Abad Vidhani Sanganer, Jaipur 302 017 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AWLPD 2180 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA. & Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 18 /02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 20//02/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER On 12-08-2024, an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, (for short ‘’Act) relating to assessment year 2011-12, was passed by Learned CIT(A), thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and sustaining the assessment dated 01- 11-2018 framed by the Assessing Officer. 2 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 2. Vide impugned assessment, the AO computed total income of the assessee at Rs.70,07,908/- by making an addition of Rs.66,81,000/- to the income declared by the assessee. 3. The assessee is feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and as such, she has come up in appeal. 4. As reported by Registry, the appeal is barred by limitation of 29 days. Alongwith appeal, the assessee also presented an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. 5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 12-08-2024 and the appeal was presented on29-11-2024. While arguing in the first instance, on the application seeking condonation of delay, ld AR for the applicant has submitted that the assessee is an old and illiterate lady whose return of incomes were being maintained by her husband. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that it was on 27-11-2024 that husband of the applicant enquired from the previous Tax Professional dealing with her tax matter, about the status of appeal filed before the ld CIT(A), and only then she came to know that appeal stood already dismissed on 12-08-2024. 3 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Further, it has been submitted that on 27-11-2024 itself, the assessee engaged some other Tax Professional, who helped in filing of the appeal on 29-11- 2024. Therefore, the ld. AR has urged that keeping in view the abovesaid reasons, the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. 6. In the course of arguments, the ld. DR for the Revenue has not opposed prayer made on behalf of the applicant seeking condonation of delay. 7. As noticed above, the appeal has been filed 29 days after the prescribed period for filing of the appeal. In the application, the applicant has alleged that e-mail-ID [e-mail] of previous Tax Professional was provided to the Department, on its income tax portal, but said professional did not apprise the assessee of the outcome of the appeal. 8. On going through Form 35, we find that the e-mail-ID [e-mail] was furnished for the purposes of communication of notices etc. Therein, the above-said e-mail ID i.e. [e-mail] does not find mention. Present appeal as well as application have been drafted and presented through CA Shri Vijay Gupta who has also argued the matter before us. It is his e- mail ID which was furnished in Form 35 i.e. for the purpose of communication of 4 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR notice etc. by the office of the ld CIT(A). Therefore, it was the duty of Shri Vijay Gupta, CA to inform the assessee about the dismissal of the appeal. 9. Surprisingly, in the application, Shri Vijay Gupta has nowhere mentioned for the reasons best known to him, that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was presented through him and it was his e-mail-ID that was furnished in Form 35. 10. Be that as it may, we find that this is a case where assessee who is an old illiterate lady, cannot be allowed to suffer because of non-communication of order by her CA, apprising about dismissal of her appeal. 11. Consequently, we condone delay of 29 days in filing of this appeal. 12. Arguments have been advanced by both the sides even in appeal on merits. File perused. 13. In the course of arguments, the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us is that the assessment order deserves to be set aside, the reason being that the AO never disposed of objections filed by the assessee whereby he had sought reasons for reopening of the case and initiation of proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision in the matter of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO , 259 ITR 19 (SC). 5 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 14. On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue submitted that it was not clear from the record that reasons for reopening of the assessment were or were not submitted by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. 15. It may be mentioned here that after verification from the Assessing Officer, Learned DR has informed that reasons were provided to the appellant vide email dated 13.6.2018. Learned DR has also submitted copy of the requisite form meant for recording reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147 and for obtaining of approval of PCIT. He has also submitted copy of concerned email addressed to the assessee at the given email ID. 16. In view of all this, there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant that reasons for reopening of the assessment were not supplied to the assessee. At the same time, we express our displeasure that at the time of final arguments, AR representing the appellant raised a contention, which is against record. 17. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that in para 7.2 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) made observations Same are reproduced, and read as under:- ‘7.2. ……..Appellant had not only non-complied to the statutory notices issued to him by the AO during assessment proceedings but as pointed out above nothing was submitted during the appellate proceedings also, in spite of three notices issued in the last three years. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the 6 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Act was issued along with questionnaire on 13.07 2018, 07.09.2018 & 03.10.2018 requiring compliance on 18.07.2018, 18.09.2018 & 08 10.2018 respectively However, no compliance was made by the appellant. Hence, a final show cause notice dated 17 10.2018 was also issued through speed post and requested to furnish documents in respect of sold immovable property for Rs. 46,50,000/- and Rs. 20,31,000/- The total income of Rs. 66,81,000 on which the capital Gain arisen was not disclosed for taxation under the provisions of the income tax Act, 1961 The above immovable property is a capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2(14) of the income tax Act, 1961 as the above immovable property is situated within limits of Jaipur municipal corporation Jaipur However, the appellant did not submit documentary evidences either in assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings Therefore, the contention of the appellant is factually incorrect and misleading.’’ 18. From the above observations, it transpires that despite opportunity, the appellant did not produce relevant information or documents before Learned CIT(A) in support of her claim. Even before Assessing Officer, despite ample notices, the assessee failed to produce any material or requisite information or documents. In the course of arguments, this fact has not been controverted on behalf of the appellant. 19. Ld. AR for the appellant submits that vide an application submitted before this Appellate Tribunal, appellant has prayed for production of certain documents, which she did not produce before the authorities below. 7 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 20. We have gone through the application. It has been filed under Rule 46A of IT Rules. It was for the appellant to satisfy that the assessee could not produce the documents now sought to be produced before this Appellate Tribunal. We find that the assessee could easily produce before the authorities below said documents, including a Certificate from the Contractor regarding construction work. As regards her own affidavit, admittedly, she could also produce the same there before the authorities below. Rest of the documents must have been before the authorities. 21. Having regard to the nature of the issues involved, we find that the Certificate from the Contractor is a relevant document for their adjudication. However, for the carelessness and negligence on the part of the assessee, as is gathered from non compliance with the notices issued by the authorities below, we deem it a fit case to burden her with costs. So, we allow the prayer of the appellant to produce before Learned CIT(A) her affidavit and certificate from the contractor on the point of construction work. She is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Costs to be deposited by the appellant in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund before commencement of the proceedings before Learned CIT(A), and its receipt to be produced there. 8 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 22. In view of the above discussion, the matter needs to be remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, after affording another opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and calling for remand report if any from the Assessing Officer as regards the documents, which the appellant has been allowed to be produced there, or which are desired by Learned CIT(A) for effective adjudication of the appeal. Result 23. As a result, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and the matter is remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after affording another opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and calling for remand report if any, from the Assessing Officer as regards the documents, which the appellant has been allowed to be produced there, or which are desired by Learned CIT(A) for effective adjudication of the appeal. File of appeal be consigned to the record room, after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 / 02/2025 (xxu Xkks;y) ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 20 /02/2025 9 ITA NO. 1446/JP/2024 SMT. RUKMANI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR *Mishra, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Rukmani Devi, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2) Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.1446/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "