HAJEE MOHAMED ABDULKADER ABDUL REHMAN,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MYSURU

ITA 590/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. ([1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC)), which advocates for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation, though not participating in proceedings, was not deliberate and that substantial justice should be preferred over a technical approach. Regarding the addition of agricultural income, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 and the assessee did not participate before the CIT(A), preventing the submission of evidence. Considering the assessee holds agricultural land and declared agricultural income in preceding years, the addition of Rs. 68,66,513/- under Section 69A was deemed not justified. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the claim. The AO was directed to examine the claim based on evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hajee Mohamed Abdulkader Abdul Rehman, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 23.05.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The appeal was filed with a delay of 200 days. The assessee attributed the delay to not being tech-savvy and missing communications sent to his Chartered Accountant's email ID. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing non-compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings. The ITAT noted that the assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 41,19,908/- (Gross Rs. 68,66,513/-) against a total income of Rs. 1,68,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the gross agricultural receipt of Rs. 66,86,513/- as unexplained money under section 69A due to lack of supporting evidence regarding receipts, crop nature, and expenditure, completing the assessment under section 144. The CIT(A) upheld the addition as the assessee did not participate in appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has sufficient cause to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the assessee not being tech-savvy and unaware of communications sent to his CA's email, and was neither intentional nor deliberate. - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, having been non-compliant during assessment and appellate proceedings. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by disallowances of agricultural income without affording adequate opportunity, turning on Section 69A and Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - Assessee's contention: The assessee could not properly participate in assessment and appellate proceedings and furnish supporting evidence for agricultural income, requesting the matter be restored to the AO for fresh examination. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities but had no objection if the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. H, JCIT

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter, the learned CIT(A)) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) vide order dated 23.05.2025. 2. At the outset, we note that the pr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →