DEEPA RAMCHANDRA KHADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of the order passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29/09/2025, for A.Y. 2017-18, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 263 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 24,09,919/- made by the Assessing Officer as difference between actual Agricultural income earned by the assessee and Agricultural income allowed by the Assessing Officer as income from business or profession.

2.1. From the affidavit, we note that the assessee is a Non- Resident Indian residing in Bali, Indonesia and is also a senior citizen aged about 69 years. It has been averred that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 29/09/2025 and that, owing to the assessee's ill-health, absence from India and inability to obtain appropriate legal assistance within the prescribed period, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation prescribed under the Act. The assessee has further stated that immediately upon obtaining professional legal advice, the present appeal came to be filed, resulting in a delay of only 17 days. The assessee submitted that that the delay in filing present appeal before this Tribunal was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

2.2. The Ld. DR did not place any material on record to controvert the averments made in the affidavit nor demonstrate that the delay was deliberate or actuated by mala fide intention.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit placed on record.

3.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. Similar principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123], wherein it was held that the length of delay is not material and that acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion for deciding whether the delay deserves to be condoned.

3.2. Respectfully following the aforesaid settled principles and considering the totality of the facts placed before us, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee, an individual and presently a non-resident residing in Bali, Indonesia, is the owner of agricultural land measuring 3 approximately 2.88 hectares situated at Village Kasba Bawada, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra. According to the assessee, agricultural activities were carried out on the said land, including cultivation and sale of sugarcane, seeds, vegetables, farm soil and well water supplied for irrigation to neighbouring farmers. During the relevant previous year, the assessee declared gross agricultural receipts of ₹27,40,669 and claimed agricultural expenses of ₹1,50,000, resulting in agricultural income of ₹25,90,669. During the year, cash aggregating to ₹21,21,710 was deposited in various bank accounts, of which ₹10,50,000 was deposited during the demonetisation period.

4.1. The original assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 was completed ex parte under section 144 on 16.12.2019, wherein an addition of ₹22,50,000 was made on account of unexplained cash deposits. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of powers under section 263, set aside the assessment holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the claim of agricultural income and directed a fresh assessment after proper verification.

4.2. Pursuant to the directions issued under section 263, the Ld.AO passed fresh assessment order dated 17.03.2023. The Ld.AO accepted the existence of agricultural operations only to a limited extent and, on an estimated basis, restricted the agricultural income, treating a sum of ₹24,09,919 (approximately) as non-agricultural income taxable under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession". The earlier addition of ₹22,50,000 towards unexplained cash deposits was also retained.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.3. The Ld.CIT(A), affirmed the action of the Ld.AO both in treating a substantial part of the declared agricultural income as non-agricultural income and in sustaining the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.1. It is submitted that the evidence could not be produced before the lower authorities owing to the assessee's relocation to Indonesia and the consequent inability to effectively participate in the assessment proceedings. The additional evidence comprises:

• Extract of Form No. 7/12 evidencing ownership of 2.88 hectares of agricultural land. • Agricultural income register maintained by the assessee. • Sample sale receipts of agricultural produce. • Bank statements highlighting cash deposits. • Computation of income and return of income. • Affidavits of certain purchasers confirming purchase of agricultural produce from the assessee during the relevant year.

• Geo-tagged photographs depicting the agricultural land, crops and irrigation well.

5.2. The Ld.AR contends that these documents substantiate the genuineness of the agricultural operations and the agricultural income disclosed in the return and, therefore, deserve to be admitted and considered in the interest of justice.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

6.1. Since these documents were admittedly not available for examination before the authorities below and require factual verification, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served by restoring this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall examine the additional evidence, after deciding its admissibility in accordance with law, carry out such verification as may be considered necessary, afford adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite documents in support of her claim. 6 Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes.

As we have remitted the main issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ground No.3 also needs to be verified in the light of evidences furnished by the assessee in the above ground.

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 31/07/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: DEEPA RAMCHANDRA KHADE , 78-A/8, 2ND FLOOR HINGORANI 1 HOUSE DR. AB ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018, MAHARASHTRA

ITO WARD 22(1)(1), 2 PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALBAUG PAREL, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE