SHRI. CHALASANI BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD -1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case the orders dated 18.03.2024 and 22.01.2026 respectively passed by the learned lower authorities is highly unjust, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the binding directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal in its order dated 21.06.2022. 2. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified to have declined to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal, without giving the appellant an opportunity to make his submissions on the reasons for the delay and the judicial pronouncements on the issue. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in failing to appreciate that the issue under agitation was covered in favor of the appellant by the earlier decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 21st June 2022 as well as the order dated 7th March 2024 in the case of the(Co-owner) appellant’s wife Smt. C. Rathna Bai passed following the directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 21.06.2022. 4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have taken into consideration the written submissions made by the appellant on 10.04.2025 and ought to have allowed the appeal on merits. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, with kind permission, Appellant prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the Appeal in the interest of justice.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the information received from the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburgi, the assessee, along with his wife, sold non- agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 1.5 crore, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any details. Accordingly, vide order dated 28.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 33,69,750/-. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee again failed to furnish any details as called for by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the AO. In further appeal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.06.2022, restored the issue to the file of the AO for consideration afresh and examined whether the land was used for agricultural purposes even after conversion until the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, in the second round of proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details in support of its claim. However, despite the grant of sufficient opportunity, the assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices as well as the show cause notice and would submit complete details with supporting documents such as seed, fertiliser, pesticide, labour charges, water and electricity bill. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the AO computed the assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 39,73,750/-.

It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 64 days on the basis that the assessee has not proved sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

As per the assessee, he is an agriculturist and is a resident of Shivapura village, Koppal Taluk. Further, as per the assessee, the delay occurred due to non-receipt of SMS/E-Mail alert regarding the assessment order.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. M.S. Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the rules of procedure are handmade of justice. When the substantial justice taking into consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, it is evident that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the view that delay should be condoned. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo consideration, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal before us do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

As a result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-Aug-2026.