VARSHA JAIN,JAIPUR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 240/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Varsha Jain, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention was the alleged delay in filing the appeal, which the CIT(A) noted as a delay of 228 days without sufficient cause. However, the assessee argued that the assessment order was neither uploaded on the IT portal nor physically delivered until a request was made, and thus, the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the absence of proper opportunity for the assessee to present her case and the lack of consideration of the appeal on its merits by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708846 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRABHA RANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 240/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Smt. Varsha Jain 702, Man Shree Apartment, B-99/100, Janpath, Shsyam Nagar, Jaipur 302 019 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward-2 (3) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFPO 9102 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Ms. Prabha Rana, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 16/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 26-12-2024 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment years 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal: ‘’1. The assessment order was not uploaded on the IT portal. The assessee came to know that an order has been passed against the assessee reason that there was pressure from income tax department to deposit the demand and therefore the assessee requested on 22.07.2019 to provide copy of assessment order. The assessee received the copy of order on 30.07.2019. The copy of order itself clearly 2 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR speak that this order was received physically and within 30 days the assessee filed an appeal. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) without providing any opportunity to submit the evidence, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant has not furnished any details for filling the appeal which is bad in law & Facts. 2. Without providing any opportunity assuming that the appeal has been filed late by 228 days is bad in law & facts. The assessee was issued several notices by Ld. CIT (Appeal) but was never asked for late filling of appeal as presumed by the Ld. CIT (Appeal). Everytime Ld. CIT (Appeal) asked for submission on grounds of appeal which was duly submitted. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has not passed any order on submission of grounds and instead dismissed the appeal on the ground imagined by the ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity is bad in law and facts. 3.The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering and not allowing addition on accounts. 45 Lacs deposited as time deposit on various dates is bad in law and facts. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering and not allowing addition of Interest of Rs. 4,321 is bad in law and facts. 5. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that initiation of proceeding u/s 148 is bad in law and Facts. 6. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in not considering that without issue and service of notice u/s 148 passing of order u/s 143(3) 147 is bad in law and facts. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that without service of notice u/s 143(2), reassessment proceedings is bad in law and facts. 8. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that without servicer of notice u/s 142(1) reassessment proceeding is bad in law and facts. 9. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay) - No 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte by holding that the assessee has not offered any explanation/evidence as to the delay of 228 days made in filing the appeal before him. The narration as made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order by 3 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR dismissing the appeal of the assessee without going into the merit of the case is as under:- ‘’2.7 In this case, the appeal is filed late by 228 days as apparent from the material available on record. Further, the appellant has not furnished any reason for delay in filing of the appeal and also not filed any evidence of date of service of notice of demand. In absence of any evidence of date of service of notice of demand and reason for delay in filing of appeal, the substantial delay in filing of appeal for 228 days cannot be accepted. 2.8. Since no explanation given for delay in filing of appeal by the appellant in Form-35 as elaborated in para 2.7, there is no \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of section 249 of the Act. The maxim 'ignorantiajuris non-excusat, or 'ignorance of the law is no excuse, means that people can't defend their actions by claiming they didn't know the law. Further, the appellant has also been provided sufficient opportunities but the appellant could not furnish any explanation/evidences. It is apparent that the appellant has not discharged the onus of \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T Act. Hence the delay in filing the appeal of 228 days cannot be accepted. 2.9 Hence, in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 3. As a result, the appeal is not allowed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the main grievance of the ld. AR of the assessee was that the assessment order passed by the AO on 14-12-2018 was neither uploaded on the portal nor physically delivered to the assessee but on request vide letter dated 17-07-2019 (Acknowledgement by the Department on 22-07-2019 –PB Page 1 & 2) the copy of the assessment order was received on 30-07-2019 (PB Page No.8 to 12). Hence, there was no delay made in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which means 4 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR to say that the appeal was filed within 30 days. The ld. AR further submitted that ld. CIT(A), without providing any opportunity to submit the evidence, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any details for filing the appeal which is bad in law and facts. To this effect the relevant submissions as made by the ld.AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- ‘’The groundwise submission is as under- 1 GOA I The assessment order was not uploaded on the IT portal. The assessee came to now that an order has been passed against the assessee reason that there was pressure from income tax department to deposit the demand and therefore the assessee requested on 22.07.2019 to provide copy of assessment order. The assessee received the copy of order on 30.07.2019. The copy of order itself clearly speak that this order was received physically and within 30 days the assessee filed an appeal. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) without providing any opportunity to submit the evidence, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant has not furnished any details for filling the appeal which is bad in law & Facts. 1.1. Plea of the Id. CIT (Appeals) is appearing in Ld. CIT at page no 1-4 point no 4 1.2. The facts are as under:- Kindly see Ld CIT Appeal order page no. 21 wherein erroneously without any evidence held as under- 2.1 On perusal of record, it is noted that the appeal is filed on 28.08.2019 whereas the assessment order sought to be challenged passed on 14.12.2018 it is noted that the appellant has furnished in column 14 of Form No. 35 that the appeal is within time but on the contrary to the claim of the appellant, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 228 days as apparent from the record available. Further, on perusal of column 2c of Form 35 it is found that the appellant claimed the date of service of demand notice was 30.07.2019 but the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of her claim that the notice of demand was served upon the appellant on 30.07.2019 Further the appellant has not furnished any reason for delay tang in appeal. In view of above, it is clear that there is substantial delay in filing of appeal at the end of the appellant Whereas the facts are as under- 5 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR A. The assessee is simply housewife Page B. The assessee came to know that one order has been passed against the assessee when there was pressure from income tax department to deposit the demand. C The assessee contacted to the undersigned AR with the request to take copy of the order. The assessee found on the IT portal (Kindly see paperbook page no. 13.), the relevant scanned portion is as under:- D. The assessment order was not uploaded on the IT portal. Kindly see paperbook page no. 14. The relevant scanned portion is as under:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Dear Taxpayer, The proceeding has been closed. Officer has sent the order separately. Note: In case of any concern, please contact your Assessing Officer. E. Therefore, the assessee requested on 22.07.2019 to provide copy of assessment order (kindly see paperbook page no. 1). The assessee received the 6 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR copy of order on 30.07.2019 (kindly see paperbook page no.8.). The copy of order itself clearly speak that this order was received physically. F The assessee filed appeal on 28.08.2019 and therefore within 30 days well within the time period. G. The L.d. CIT appeal issued various notices during the appellate proceedings but never asked for any clarification on this issue. And assumed that the assessee must have received the order well within the time. No opportunity was provided for any clarification Your honour therefore the dismissal of appeal on this ground is bad in law and facts Your honour, the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in gross violation of the basic principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram The Ld. AO had most arbitrarily, without intimating the rejection of the assessee request, proceeded with and disposed off the appeal partem. Further, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 22-07-2024 prayed to admit the additional ground being additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in connection with Ground No. 1 & 2 whose details are made available at paper book pages 42 to 56 of the paper book for which the Bench has no objection to admit the same. To support her case, the ld. AR of the assessee filed the following paper book containing pages 1 to 56. S.N. Particular Page No. 1 Request for certified copy of the assessment order dated 17.7.2019 deposited on 22.7.2019 1-2 2. Request to allow inspection of records and certified copies of papers/documents dated 31.7.2019 deposited on 01.08.2019 3-6 3. Reminder for Request to allow inspection of records and certified copies of papers/ documents dated 03.06.2022 deposited on 03.06.2022 7 4. Assessment order dated 14/12/2018 received on 30.7.2019 8-12 5. IT portal Screen shot for non-available of assessment order 13 7 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR 6. IT portal screen shot the assessment order was not uploaded on the IT portal 14 7. Notice under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 1/2024-25/1066426389(1) Date: 05.07.2024 15-18 8. Request to allow additional evidence underunder section 250(4)of the LT.Act rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide ack No. 854280181220724 dated 22.7.2024 19-25 9. Notice under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 1/2024-25/1066972763(1) Date: 24.07.2024 26-29 10. Submission of Paper book for request to allow additional evidence underunder section 250(4) of the I.T.Act/rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide ack No. 355466821060824 dated 06.08.2024 30-37 11. Notice under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2024-25/1071248497(1) Date: 16.12.2024 38-41 12. 12 Again submission of request to allow additional evidence under section 250(4)of the L.T.Act/rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide ack No. 760920391191224 on dated 19.12.2024 42-56 Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has also passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thus made an addition of Rs.46,87,940/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the hands of the assessee and she should be given more chance to advance her submission / arguments with a view to settling the dispute in question. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR in view of the submissions as made before the Bench in the course of hearing, did not object to the same. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order holding that there was delay of 228 days and the assessee could not advance the sufficient cause and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal 8 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR without going into merits of the case. From the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee, it is noticed that there was no delay in filling the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) also should have decided the appeal of the assessee on merit, but it has not been done. Further, it is noticed that the Assessee was ex-parte before the AO who made addition of Rs.46,87940/- in the hands of the assessee as there was no submission / details before him at the time of making assessment for which the ld. AR of the assessee contended that she did not receive the communication from the AO. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench feels that with a view to settle the dispute in question, it will be in the interest of equity and justice to restore the matter to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication and the lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. The assessee is once again directed to submit all the papers concerning the appeal and also the additional grounds as mentioned at PB Page 42 to 56 9 ITA NO. 240/JPR/2025 VARSHA JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR to settle the dispute before the AO.Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court 16/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16 /07/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Smt. Varsha Jain, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.240/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "