TALLURI VENKATA RAMANA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD.

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 2,14,007/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 22,95,800/-. Thereafter, the case of the 3 Talluri Venkata Ramana assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for verifying “large agricultural income”.

As the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the A.O. could not be served/responded by the assessee, therefore, the A.O. issued summons to him under Section 131 of the Act, dated 21.06.2016. However, the assessee did not respond to the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 19.08.2016, wherein the assessee was intimated that on his failure to present the case, the assessment will be framed to the best of judgment under Section 144 of the Act and the “net agriculture income” of Rs. 22,95,800/- disclosed by him will be treated as his income from other sources. Thereafter, the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings on 25.11.2016. The A.O. called upon the assessee to substantiate his claim of having earned during the subject year agriculture income of Rs. 22,95,800/-. Also, the assessee was directed to substantiate the payment of municipal taxes and the deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. As the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details to substantiate his claim of having earned during 4 Talluri Venkata Ramana the subject year agriculture income of Rs. 22.95 lacs (approx.), therefore, the A.O. issued a show-cause notice and called upon him to explain as to why the entire amount of the impugned agriculture income of Rs. 22.95 lacs may not be treated as his income from other sources. As the assessee expressed his inability to furnish the requisite details/evidence in support of his claim of having earned agriculture income, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of Rs. 22.95 lacs (supra) as the assessee's income from other sources. Also, the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 1,08,737/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act and municipal taxes of Rs. 9,785/- were disallowed.

We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and the material available on record.

Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A., learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 368 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, which is supported by an “Affidavit” dated 18.08.2025. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, during the pendency of the appeal on 05.11.2023, had met with a major road accident and sustained 6 Talluri Venkata Ramana multiple injuries and fractures, for which he was admitted on the same day in “Yashoda Hospital”, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, where he had undergone multiple surgeries for the spine and hip. Elaborating further, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had thereafter remained bedridden for several months and remained under medical supervision, wherein he was not even able to walk with support. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, for the aforesaid compelling reasons, could not participate and furnish the requisite details in the course of the proceedings before the Addl/JCIT(Appeals-2, Ahmedabad.. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through the contents of the “Affidavit”, copy of the “First Information Report” (FIR) evidencing the accident suffered by the assessee, discharge summary of “Yashoda Hospital” revealing, viz. the date of admission on 05.11.2023, date of surgery on 11.11.2023, date of discharge as 14.11.2023, and also the copies of various scans/reports of the assessee. Also, the Ld. AR had taken us through the medical reports of Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, which substantiated his claim that the assessee, during the relevant period, had suffered a serious accident and had thereafter 7 Talluri Venkata Ramana remained under medical treatment. The Ld. AR submitted that as the failure on the part of the assessee to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities was not for any malafide reason, but for a reason which was beyond his control, therefore, he had been divested of an opportunity to defend his case before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the matter in all fairness, be restored to the file of the A.O. so that the requisite details substantiating the agriculture income of Rs. 22.95 lacs (supra) that was derived by him during the subject year, along with the maintainability of his claim of deductions, may be substantiated.

Apart from that, the Ld. AR submitted that though the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on his observation that the assessee had failed to prosecute the matter before him, the same was factually incorrect. The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee, for the aforesaid compelling reasons, could not participate in the appellate proceedings, but he had at the initial stage of the appellate proceedings filed with him his “written submissions” (Pages 1 to 2 of APB) along with a petition for admission of additional evidence (Pages 9 to 16 of APB). The Ld. AR submitted that there was no whisper of the aforesaid “written 8 Talluri Venkata Ramana submissions” or the application for admission of additional evidence in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). The Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contention, submitted that as the CIT(A) had failed to consider the “written submissions” and the application filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence, and further there were justifiable reasons for the assessee for not participating in the appellate proceedings as he had suffered a serious accident and was bedridden and thereafter under medical treatment, therefore, the matter, in all fairness, be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the same.

We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the learned authorized representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities.

Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record that the assessee had way back on 14.04.2017 filed before the CIT(A) his “written submissions” (Pages 1 and 2 of APB) along with enclosures. Also, the assessee had filed with the CIT(A) an application seeking admission of additional evidence (Pages 9 to 10 of APB) (along with documentary evidence). However, we find 9 Talluri Venkata Ramana that there is no whisper in the CIT(A) order of either of the aforesaid i.e., the “written submissions” or the application for admission of additional evidence. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, backed by his observation that the assessee had, despite sufficient opportunity, failed to prosecute the matter. Apart from that, we find that as the assessee, at the relevant point of time, had suffered a major accident on 05.11.2023, i.e. during the pendency of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), and had thereafter remained bedridden, followed by medical treatment/ surgeries, therefore, there were even otherwise justifiable reasons for the failure on his part to participate in the appellate proceedings before him.

Be that as it may, we are of the firm conviction that, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, the matter merits to be restored to the file of CIT(A), who is directed to re-adjudicate the same. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, during the course of set aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.