SARLA DEVI,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

ITA 1028/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sarla Devi, the appellant, who challenged an order by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. The original assessment order dated 05.12.2019 added Rs. 6,35,837/- as short term capital gain from shares, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant, being a super senior citizen of 86 years, filed the appeal late, citing non-receipt of the order at her local address. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim of non-service of notice and condoned the delay, remanding the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781583 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. POONIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; 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,”SMC-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. 1028/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Sarla Devi 13, Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPA2729G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri R. S. Poonia, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :25/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee appellant presented appeal before the Registry on 15.07.2025, so as to challenge order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2012-13, whereby appeal filed by the assessee, came to be dismissed and the assessment order dated 05.12.2019, making addition of Rs. 6,35,837/- towards short term capital gain, relating to the shares, came to be upheld. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1028/JPR/2025 Sarla Devi , Jaipur. 2. Since, the appeal came to be filed on 106 days after the prescribed period of limitation, Registry raised a deficiency note in this regard. On behalf of the Appellant an application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed along with affidavit of the applicant dated 08.08.2025. 3. On the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a super senior citizen of 86 years old, and further that the impugned order was not served upon the assessee at her local address, provided in column no. 17 of form 35, and as such, has delay occurred in filing of the appeal. 4. A perusal of form 35 would reveal that in column no. 17, therefore, the assessee furnished her local address, C 43 Cosmo Colony, Jaipur as the address for notice to be sent to the appellant. But, it is also significant to note that in the same column, the assessee furnished her email address as well. It is also pertinent to note that in the particulars given at the top of form 35, the assessee had furnished the same email address, but she opted that no notices/ communications be sent to her on the said email address . We have asked from Ld. AR for the applicant as to why the same email address was furnished in the column no. 17, after having expressed in the top of Form 35 that no such notice/communication was to be sent on Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1028/JPR/2025 Sarla Devi , Jaipur. the said email address. The only response submitted by Ld. AR for the applicant is that inadvertently the said email address came to be furnished in column No. 17. 5. It is true that the applicant should not have furnished the very email address in column No. 17, after having specified at the top of Form 35 that the assessee did not want any communication at the said email address. It appears that the assessee could not get proper advice in this regard. 6. In the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), there is mentioned issuance of 3 notices to the applicant, and further that except for seeking adjournment on two occasions, the appellant did not submit any reply to the notices issued. 7. As is available from para 4 of the impugned order, on enablement communication window, notices were issued. So, the notices appear to have been sent to the above email ID. There is no mention in the impugned order regarding service of the notices u/s 250 of the Act, on the address mentioned in column No. 17, of form 35. 8. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, especially when applicant could not participate even in Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1028/JPR/2025 Sarla Devi , Jaipur. the appellate proceedings, due to non service of notices at the given local address of the assessee. For the above said reasons, we find merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer so as to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Result 9. As a result, and in view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), the matter is be remanded to the Assessing Officer so as to provide reasonable opportunity of being herd to the assessee and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/09/2025. 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:- 29/09/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1028/JPR/2025 Sarla Devi , Jaipur. *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sarla Devi, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), 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. 1028/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "