GEJJALAGERE SREEKANTAIAH CHANDRASHEKARA,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS MANDYA, MANDYA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and while filing the return of income, mistakenly they claimed an amount of Rs. 1,52,06,232/- u/s. 54 of the Act and also Rs. 18,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. The AO had sought for the details about the claim made in the return of income but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore a best judgment assessment u/s. 144 was made by disallowing the claim made by the assessee and treated the same as income under the head Long Term Capital Gains. Similarly, the 80C deduction was disallowed. As against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the deduction claimed was wrongly made since the entire amount has been received as compensation for acquiring the lands under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR), 2013 and therefore the entire compensation received is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The assessee had not responded to the hearing notices and therefore an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 334 days. The assessee also filed an application to condone the said delay. In the said application, the assessee submitted that he is an agriculturist and does not have email facility on his own and the email provided in the e-filing portal belonged to his friend and therefore the assessee does not have any knowledge about the various hearing notices as well as the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the appeal could not be filed in time. The assessee further submitted that when he has received a call from the department in the first week of February, 2026 about the outstanding demand, the assessee approached the tax practitioner and thereafter came to know that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Thereafter the appeal before this Tribunal was filed and prayed that the delay may be condoned.

We have considered the submissions made by the assessee and also the circumstances under which he was not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore we are satisfied that the assessee is having valid reasons for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore we condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist is not having an email ID and the email ID provided in the portal is also related to his friend and therefore he was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee was not well versed with the provisions of the Act and therefore shown the amount received as compensation for the acquisition of land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR), 2013 as income even though the said compensation is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act and therefore prayed that an opportunity may be granted to substantiate his case before the authorities since both the authorities had no occasion to consider the said grounds.

The Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had not responded before both the authorities and therefore the orders of the lower authorities are liable to be sustained.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have considered the submissions made by the assessee that he is an agriculturist and does not have email ID on his own and therefore relied on the email ID of his friend and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the authorities. We have also considered the submission that the compensation amount received for acquiring his land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR), 2013 also not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. But unfortunately, the assessee had not appeared before the authorities and therefore ex-parte orders were passed by the lower authorities.

Considering the fact that the assessee is an agriculturist and also the income is awarded under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, to decide about the taxability of the said income, we are of the view that the issue needs to be considered by the AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower authorities and remitted the issue to the file of the AO for reconsideration. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the AO for the early completion of the assessment.

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