(LATE)SELLIYAGOUNDANPUDUR RAMASAMY ARUMUGAM, REP. BY L/H SULOCHANA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), COIMBATORE

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Impugned Order is bad in law and erroneous.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Learned CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate the deriving of agricultural income despite several opportunities given by the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A), the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, there is a delay of 372 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that as the appellant had deceased, the legal heirs of the appellant were not aware of the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Act.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

On merits, the Learned AR submits that the agricultural income declared that same land was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the immediate preceding assessment year and therefore, the Assessing Officer ought not have disbelieved the agricultural income.

On the other hand, the Learned Sr.DR opposed the above submissions.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find from the record that the assessment order was passed ex-parte for the failure of the appellant to respond to notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Even on appeal before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant had not complied with the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. We find that the appellant had deceased and the legal heirs perhaps may not be aware of the ongoing proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A). And therefore, considering the difficulties faced by the legal heirs of the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1977/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1978/CHNY/2026 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th August, 2026.