SUSHILA NANDWANA,JAIPUR V. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 777/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sushila Nandwana, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A) which upheld the assessment order treating a loss as income, amounting to Rs. 11,78,453 for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was initially challenged for being time-barred, but the delay was condoned after it was found that notices were incorrectly sent to her husband's email instead of her tax consultant's. The tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, acknowledging the procedural mishap in communication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771871 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANOOP BHATIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sushila Nandwana 166, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKXPN9693D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25 /08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Assessee filed present appeal on 13.05.2025, challenging order dated 08.02.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2012-13. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant and thereby upheld the assessment order dated 28.11.2019. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. 2. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed 378 days after the prescribed period. With the appeal, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The assessee also presented her own affidavit with the application. Today, when the matter has taken up, Ld. AR has presented affidavit of Shri Badri Narayan Nandwana, husband of the assessee, in support of said application. 3. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee could not respond to any of the notices issued by office of Learned CIT(A), as the same were dispatched to the email ID of her husband. 4. A perusal of Form 35 would reveal that in the first column thereof, email ID of husband of the applicant was mentioned, but that was not meant for the purpose of communication of notices. For communication of notices, email ID of Chartered Accountant/ tax consultant was provided in column No. 17. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that any of the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A), was dispatched/communicated on the said email ID of the tax consultant. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that copy of notice dated 30.11.2023 i.e. second notice dispatched to the assessee, depicts that it was communicated at the above said email ID of husband of the assessee. It remains unexplained as to how the notice came to be addressed to the email ID of the husband, where it was not required to be addressed. 5. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, and order accordingly. On merits 6. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the loss as income of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 11,78,453/-. As observed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order, the assessee did not furnish return of income. She also did not comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. Keeping in view the non cooperating attitude to the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice, whereupon the assessee filed her return of income. 7. Assessment proceedings commenced on the basis of information available with the department that the assessee entered into commodity transaction to the tune of Rs. 80,66,91,000/-, but it did not explain as Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. regards earned income/loss. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, but she did not comply with the same within prescribed period. That is how, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, followed by the show cause notice came to be issued. So, the Assessing Officer had to commence the assessment proceedings, and make addition while observing that the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation for payment of loss of Rs. 11,78,332/-, reflected by her for the first time in the return of income filed in response to the show cause notice. 8. In the given situation, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth the only submission that the matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer so that the issue involved is effectively adjudicated on production of all the relevant material by the assessee there. In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the remitting of the matter to the Assessing Officer instead of to the Learned CIT(A). 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and the issues involved, we deem it a fit case to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. Result 10. In the given situation, the appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose and in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. Since the assessee did not comply with the directions issued by the Assessing Officer and the matter has to be remitted to the Assessing Officer, the assessee is burdened with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Costs to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The applicant to produce before the Assessing Officer, receipt in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- imposed today, and thereupon he shall commence proceedings. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/08/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 777/JPR/2025 Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(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. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 777/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "