Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a farmer with limited education, did not participate in assessment or appeal proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders. A significant delay occurred in filing the present appeal due to lack of awareness and professional guidance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the source of bank deposits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence, given the ex-parte nature of previous orders.
Sections Cited
250, 253(3), 10(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
| Pattabhi Barapati, KOTHAGUDEM – 507 101. Khammam District. PAN AUHPB5358H | vs. | The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KOTHAGUDEM. PIN – 507 101. Telangana. |
|---|---|---|
| (Appellant) | (Respondent) | |
| िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by : | Sri Poorna Chander Rao, CA | |
| राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by : | Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. AR |
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 03.09.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
2 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025 2. There is a delay of 272 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit to explain the cause of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is a farmer and educated only up to 5th standard. He has further submitted that the assessee never filed any return of income as there was no taxable income in the hand of the assessee being an agriculturist. For the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order whereby cash deposits during the demonetization period in the bank account of the assessee has been assessed to tax. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the assessee was not aware about the proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer as well the learned CIT(A) and the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), therefore, due to lack of awareness, the assessee could not file the present appeal within the limitation period. He has thus, pleaded that the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
3 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025
On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that ignorance of law cannot be a reason for delay in filing the present appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit reads as under:
“1. The Appellant humbly submits that the present appeal is being filed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 03.09.2024 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, 2. As per section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal ought to have been filed within two months from the end of the month of date of receipt of the impugned order. However, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, there has been a delay of 273 days in filing the present appeal.
3. The Appellant respectfully submits that he is an agriculturist owning agricultural lands and carrying on cultivation of cotton and chillies. The Appellant has limited knowledge of legal and tax procedures and resides in a rural area where professional guidance was not readily available. Further, in the past, he had never faced scrutiny or appeal proceedings under the provisions of Income tax Act 1961 in any of the earlier Asst. Years as he did not file his return of income. The appellant had, in the past, always derived agriculture income.
4 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025
4. Though the appellant had received the order of the learned CIT(A) but, owing, lack of awareness of the prescribed time limits, and further engagement in agricultural operations during the harvest season, he could not take immediate steps to approach professional advisors for filing the appeal.
5. It is only upon subsequently consulting tax practitioner that the Appellant realized the necessity of filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The delay in filing is therefore neither deliberate nor intentional but solely due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond his control.
The Appellant submits that he has a strong case on merits, as the impugned additions confirmed by the learned authorities relate mainly to agricultural sale proceeds, which are exempt under section 10(1) of the Act, and to certain contract receipts that were incorrectly estimated.
7. The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of substantial justice, as otherwise the Appellant would suffer irreparable loss and hardship despite having a good case on merits.” 4.1. There is no dispute that the assessee is a farmer and carrying out only agricultural activities and therefore, the assessee did not file return of income. The Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte assessment whereby deposits made during the demonetization period in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.10,37,000/- has been assessed to 5 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025 tax. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-prosecution as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, it is clear that neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has considered the source of these deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has even not considered any past savings from the agricultural income of the assessee as source of deposits. Now the assessee has filed the additional evidence explaining the source of the deposit in the bank account. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a ‘reasonable cause’ for delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 272 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. “The appellant contends the confirming of addition of Rs.11,81,515 by the learned Assessing Officer (AU) of which Rs.10,37,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 69A and Rs.144,515/- as Contract Receipts is bad in law and in fact
6 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025
The appellant contends that the cash deposits of Rs.10,37,000/- represents the agricultural income from cultivation of cotton and chillies and are therefore exempt under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition of same by invoking Section 69A is unsustainable.
3. The appellant contends that confirming the estimated addition of Rs.1,00,131/-Le. 98% on the total bank credits of Rs.12,51,640/-, of which Rs.5,54,800/-pertains to contract receipts from the Rural Water Supply Department and the balance represented agricultural income and thus is bad in law and in fact.
4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing
In view of all these and other grounds which may be pleaded during the hearing of the appeal, the appeal may kindly be allowed.”
6. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the assessee has only agricultural income and never filed any return of income therefore, the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as well as in the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). He has now filed the additional evidence and submitted that the additional evidence filed by the assessee needs to be verified and examined at the level of the Assessing Officer in respect of the source of the deposits in 7 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025 the bank account and therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly submitted that both the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) are ex-parte as the assessee did not participate in the proceedings and also not filed any explanation with supporting evidence for the source of the deposit in the bank account. Thus, the learned DR has raised no serious objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the relevant record.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte order whereby entire deposit in the bank account has been assessed to tax. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is a farmer by 8 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025 occupation and never filed his return of income. The assessee being an illiterate studied up to 5th standard could not file relevant details and record before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A) which has resulted in dismissal of the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Now the assessee has filed additional evidence in respect of the source of the deposits in the bank account during the demonetization period. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
9 ITA.No.1391/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.04.2026.