KAUSHIK D BHAGAT (PATEL),VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order despite of fact that he does not have juri iction to assess the assessee and accordingly, the order passed by AO is required to be quashed.

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.

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. 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. 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.