JAGDISHKUMAR SHIVJIBHAI VIRDA,ANJAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.6,090/- and showing agricultural income of Rs.20,32,250/- and same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny followed by notice u/s 143(2) & 143(1) of the Act. However, in response to the notices, assessee could not substantiate the claim properly before the Assessing Officer, therefore Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record. He noticed that assessee has claimed huge agricultural income as per his return file and notice that gross agriculture receipt of Rs.67,44,850/- and agricultural expenditure claimed to the extent of Rs.20,32,250/- and the entire amount of Rs.20,32,250/- claim as exempted income for the assessment year under consideration. In order to verify the agricultural income Assessing Officer issued notice upon the assessee to furnish supporting evidence such as land record details, crops cultivated sales bills, expenditure vouchers and other relevant documents. However, assessee filed a simple online reply without any documentary evidence in support of the claim. In absence of the necessary details and supporting documents the Assessing Officer completed assessment on the basis of details available on record by determining the total income of assessee at Rs.69,03,550/-.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however due to non-appearance of consecutive date before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay of 607-days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. In this connection, assessee has filed application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the decision of the authority below and he stated that assessee is a habitual defaulter, therefore assessment order as well as appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance. On submission of counter, the AR of the assessee stated that the assessee is suffering from serious physical ailment including disability arising out of from post polio applications and could not effectively pursue the appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware on such order only when bank account attached from recovery of demand. Therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee substantiate the claim of agricultural income by producing the relevant documentary evidence.

We have heard, the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted position that there is a delay of 607-days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The explanation offered by the assessee is that assessee is suffering from post polio disability and other serious health related issue which prevented effectively pursuing the appellate proceedings. Considering, the reasons assigned by the assessee and keeping in mind that the judiciary ordinarily adopts liberal approach where sufficient cause so that substantial justice not defeated on technical grounds. We are satisfied that the delay deserved to be condoned. We further notice that the assessment as well as the appellate order has been passed without the benefit of complete documentary evidence from the assessee since the issue relates to the verification of the agricultural income and assessee has expressed his willingness furnished all supporting evidence. We are considered opinion that the matter deserve to be restored to the file of AO in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is also directed to furnish supporting documents, in order to substantiate its claim.