Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual with agricultural income, declared nil income for AY 2020-21. The AO assessed the total income at Rs. 32,00,000/-, taxing agricultural income due to non-proof. The appellant filed an appeal with the CIT(A) after a delay of 774 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the appellant's explanation for the delay (incorrect address, unfamiliarity with e-proceedings). Therefore, the case is remanded to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for a fresh disposal after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal in limine due to a 774-day delay without condoning it or considering the assessee's explanation.
Sections Cited
144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Assessment Year: 2020-21 George Thomas .......... Appellant Kurissummoottil Mukkalli, Parathodu Edakkunnam, Kottayam 686512 [PAN: AFYPT6697M] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Prasanth Srinivas Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 19.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving agricultural income. The return of income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 05.01.2021 declaring Nil income showing agricultural income of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.09.2022 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at total income of George Thomas Rs. 32,00,000/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the entire receipts shown from agriculture of Rs. 32,00,000/- for the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus of proving he agricultural income.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 774 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that the NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay of 774 days. It is submitted before the CIT(A) that the delay had occurred on account of non-receipt of communication by the assessing authority as the assessment order was sent on incorrect address and the appellant being an agriculturist was unfamiliar with the e-proceedings and he was not aware of the assessment order until he received SMS from the department regarding outstanding demand. Thus, he submits that the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal in limine on grounds of delay. I find from the order of the CIT(A) that the CIT(A), without giving reasonable opportunity and dealing with the explanation given for the delay, simply refused to condone the delay. Therefore, I am of the George Thomas considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter required remand to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025.