Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee had filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,05,200/- with agricultural income of Rs. 20,56,625/-. During assessment, it was found that the verifiable agricultural receipts were Rs. 19,43,780/- with expenses of Rs. 5,50,131/-, leading to a net agricultural income of Rs. 13,63,649/-. The Assessing Officer treated the difference of Rs. 6,92,876/- as income from other sources.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay of 816 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds raised on merits, noting that the difference in agricultural income was rightly treated as income from other sources.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed due to inordinate delay, and whether the difference in agricultural income was correctly treated as income from other sources.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2), 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 07.09.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
It is found that there was a delay of 816 days in filing of this appeal. No condonation application was filed by the assessee along with Form no.36. The Registry had issued two letters on 20.02.2025 and thereafter on 27.02.2025 to the assessee to file the affidavit for condoning the delay (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 in filing the present appeal. However, no condonation application has been filed by the assessee even in the course of hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.10.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,05,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2015. It was found that the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- during the year. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer called for details of agricultural receipts, expenses incurred to earn agriculture income, details of land holding, nature of crop grown etc. Before the Assessing Office, the assessee could produce agricultural receipt of Rs.19,43,780/- only and evidence of agricultural expense of Rs.5,50,131/- was also brought on record. Thus, the net agricultural income of the assessee was found to be Rs.13,63,649/- (19,43,780 – 5,50,131) only. The Assessing Office had also given a finding that considering the land holding of the assessee, it was unlikely that the assessee will derive agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- as disclosed in the return. Therefore, the difference between the agricultural income disclosed in the return (Rs.20,56,525/-) and the agricultural income for which the evidences were brought on record in the course of assessment proceedings (Rs.13,63,649/-), being Rs.6,92,876/-, was taken as income from other sources of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 07.11.2016 at total income of Rs.8,97,676/-, with agricultural income for rate purpose being Rs.13,63,469/-.
(Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
5. The assessee is now in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
2. Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order despite of fact that he does not have jurisdiction to assess the assessee and accordingly, the order passed by AO is required to be quashed.
3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in treating agriculture income of Rs.6,92,476/- as income from other sources.
Ld. NFAC ought to have considered submission of the appellant and ought to have deleted the disallowance.
Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified.
6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is unjustified.”
Shri Parin Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist residing in remote area and not aware about the intricacies of Income-tax proceedings. Hence, there was delay in filing the appeal, which was due to lapse on the part of the counsel. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, by mistake, had disclosed the gross agricultural receipt of Rs.20,56,625/- as agricultural income in the income tax return and the agricultural expenses were inadvertently not shown in the return. He further submitted that only the difference between the agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- as shown in the return and agricultural receipt of Rs.19,43,780/-, the evidence for which was brought on record, could have been considered as income from other source.
(Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 7. Per contra, Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal was not explained by the assessee. On merits, she submitted that the Assessing Office had also examined the land holding of the assessee and it was found that the agricultural land of 8.32 hectare was in the joint name of the assessee and his other family members. Therefore, the entire agricultural receipt/income could not have been considered as income of the assessee alone. She further submitted that considering that the assessee had land holding of 6.4 hectare only, it was impossible to derive agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- as disclosed in the Income-tax return from the said quantum of land.
We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, the assessee has not explained the inordinate delay of 816 days in filing the present appeal. It is found that the assessee, after receipt of the assessment order, had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) well within the time. Under such circumstances, the contention of the assessee that he was unaware about the intricacies of Income-tax proceedings cannot be accepted. In the absence of any explanation for this inordinate delay of 816 days in filing of this appeal, the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The assessee also can’t escape by placing the blame for the delay on the counsel. Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld in the case of C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. [2025] 178 taxmann.com 257 (SC) that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. We also do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee. The fact that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.20,56,625/- in his return has not been disputed. From the evidences as brought on record in the course of assessment (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 proceeding, it transpired that the agricultural income of the assessee was to the extent of Rs.13,63,649/- only and this fact also has not been disputed by the assessee. Under such circumstances, the Assessing Office had rightly treated the difference of Rs.6,92,876/- as income from other sources. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 26th September, 2025.