SUMAN MANOHAR WADDAR,BELGAUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

The only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s.69A of the Act for the alleged unexplained money earned by the assessee from Agricultural activities at Rs.54,09,400/-.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee making reference to the paper book running into 63 pages submitted that assessee earns Agricultural income from Agricultural activities and maintains all the records of sale bills and the expenses. He however fairly admitted that assessee could not respond to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A). He also submitted that before the Assessing Officer also various details could not be furnished as the assessment was concluded during the covid-19 pandemic restrictions period and therefore prayed for restoring the matter to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh examination and the assessee is in a position to substantiate the Agricultural income declared in the return of income.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before. We observe that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 has been e- filed on 12.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,55,580/- and agricultural income at Rs.54,09,400/-. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny to examine the claim of Agricultural income. Certain details were called for regarding the ownership of Agricultural land, nature of crops sold as well as the expenses incurred for doing the Agricultural activity. In absence of these details, ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and made the impugned addition. Assessee took the matter before ld.CIT(A) but due to non-compliance assessee failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the asesssee made reference to the paper book and submitted that assessee owns Agricultural land and the Copy of Government land records are placed at pages 17 to 20. Sale bills, bank statement, written submissions along with Affidavit for non-appearance before ld.CIT(A) and judicial precedents in its favour. It is also contended in the Affidavit that notices sent on registered email id pertains to son of assessee which remained to be accessed as the assessee in unaware of the faceless proceedings and accessing of notices sent through email.

We further find that ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings 05.03.2021 and considering that the period falls under covid-19 pandemic outbreak restrictions all over the country and due ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not furnished complete details as called for by the Assessing Officer. Before us, assessee made a prima-facie case that it is engaged in Agricultural activity however for the claim of Agricultural income during the year, the assessee could not furnished relevant details before the lower authorities. Considering the facts in entirety and adopting justice oriented approach, we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, the issues raised in the instant appeal needs to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication of the issues in light of the details filed before this Tribunal and then decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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