Roop Narayan Choudhary Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
A Power of Attorney Is Not a Property Title: ITAT Deletes ₹28.83-Lakh LTCG Imposed on Son as ‘Deemed Owner’
The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 765 days.
The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order, which was required to be challenged before the ITAT by 12.02.2024. However, the assessee claimed that he learned about the order only on 25.03.2026 through his tax consultant.
The email address registered on the income-tax portal belonged to the consultant, upon whom the assessee was completely dependent. The consultant filed an affidavit admitting that due to his own mistake & failure to visit his office, the appellate order was not communicated to the assessee.
The Revenue opposed condonation on the ground that the assessee had also failed to appear before the CIT(A).
Agriculturist Should Not Suffer for Adviser’s Default
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was an agriculturist unaware of the appellate order, whereas the Department’s electronic communications were sent to the consultant’s registered email address.
The tax consultant had personally accepted responsibility through an affidavit. Therefore, the delay was attributable to professional negligence rather than any deliberate inaction by the assessee.
The ITAT observed that a litigant otherwise entitled to a hearing should not suffer because of the mistake or negligence of the professional engaged to render legal services.
