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

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, dated
12.03.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the 2
Talluri Venkata Ramana

Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 10.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A),
ADDL/JCIT (A) -2, Ahmedabad (hereafter "learned CIT(A)" is not sustainable either on facts or in law, and is liable to be set aside in its entirety.

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.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, therefore, he, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O., upheld his order. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under:
“6.11 In view of the facts and legal position discussed above, it is presumed that appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and not having any documents, explanation and evidence in support of grounds of appeal raised and thus has not discharged the onus to substantiate the grounds. It is seen that no written submission filed till

5
Talluri Venkata Ramana date despite multiple opportunities. In view of the lack of prosecution by the appellant, I proceed to decide the appeal in view of the discussion made above.
7. The appellant has failed to furnish any material evidences or documents or even the written submission either with its appeal or during the appellate proceedings to substantiate the grounds of appeal.
In view of the discussions in the preceding paras, the clear position of law and respectfully relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts as above, I do not find merit in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on this count.”

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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

10
Talluri Venkata Ramana

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd September, 2025. (मंजूनाथ जी)
(MANJUNATHA G.)
लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (श्री रवीश सूद)
(RAVISH SOOD)
न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 03 .09.2025. TYNM/sps

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Hyderabad