SUMAN JAIN,SAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SAGAR

ITA 99/JAB/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Suman Jain, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 22/03/2024, which dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer added Rs. 28,88,755 to Jain's income under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising his total assessed income to Rs. 31,67,705 for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity during the assessment proceedings and that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which was not favorably considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and restore the case for a de novo assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775171 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N. M. PRASAD; .
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM MITTAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.99/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.99/JAB/2024 Assessment year:2017-18 Suman Jain Link Road, Near Patel Market Moti Nagar Ward, Sagar- 470002 PAN:AQMPJ3994N Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Sagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.99/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 22/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063171464(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income showing income of Rs.2,78,950/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order Appellant by Shri Shubham Mittal, C.A. Shri Ashish Toyal, C.A. Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. D.R. 1 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.99/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 on 30/09/2021 under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,67,705/- by making addition of Rs.28,88,755/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 22/03/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. (C) Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal, although there was sufficient cause for delay. He requested that the delay in filing of appeal in the office of CIT(A) should be condoned; and issues in dispute should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. Both sides were heard. Materials available on record were perused. The assessee’s application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act because of which the assessee could not file appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. The Assessing Officer has also not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. In response to a query from the Bench, in the light of the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.99/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 aforesaid facts, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the appeal may be decided by the Bench using discretion. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2025 Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated:01/09/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Jabalpur Printed from counselvise.com "