Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to appear for hearings on multiple occasions, and did not file a return of income for AY 2013-14. Despite valid notices, the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings, leading to an addition by the AO based on sale consideration of immovable property. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting a 'reasonable cause' for the delay due to communication issues with the previous consultant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without dealing with the merits of the case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case concerning the taxability of agricultural land sale.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous dates of hearing, i.e. on 09.07.2025 and 24.09.2025, there was no representation from the side of assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR and the available records.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 351 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay is placed at pages 33 to 35 of the appeal memo set. Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation of delay. We however on perusal of application for condonation of delay notice that the communications by ld.CIT(A) were sent on email ananta013k@gmail.com which as per the assessee belonged to the previous consultant and also that the assessee has clearly mentioned in Form 35 requesting not to send the notice through email. Considering the new technical advancements and various assessees not being well educated to understand these changes such delay has arisen.
Having gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 351 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We on perusal of the impugned order notice that ld.CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not dealing with merits of the case in detail. Ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Even though valid notices u/s.148 and 142(2) of the Act were served upon the assessee, however, assessee did not filed any reply/submissions in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act and has not participated in the assessment proceedings as a result of which ld. AO based on information regarding sale consideration received by the assessee at ₹53,20,000 from sale of immovable property made an addition under the head short term capital gain and assessed the income at ₹53,20,000. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) stating that he is a farmer and owns Agricultural land and carrying out the Agricultural activity and that the land in question is 13 kms away from Municipal Corporation. However, except the statement of facts no further submissions were filed by the assessee as a result ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer.
We on perusal of the records notice that the assessee has filed certain documents placed in the appeal set from pages 26 to 29 exhibiting the Agricultural land owned by the assessee. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has claimed that the information available on insight portal for sale of immovable property is with regard to the Agricultural land which does not fall in the category of capital asset and therefore the gain, if any arising from sale of such immovable property is not liable to be taxed. Considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as well as the papers filed in the appeal memo set, we deem it appropriate that the issues deserves to be remitted back to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out denovo assessment proceedings and on due consideration of the details to be filed by the assessee ld. JAO shall decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld.JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on 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 effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2025.