Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was time-barred by 186 days due to illness. The assessee had an ex-parte assessment order from the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as they were unaware of the hearing date. The assessment involved discrepancies in claimed agricultural income from land rent, crop sales, and sale of milk/bio-products, leading to additions to the total income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and lack of awareness of the hearing date before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, remitting the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) should be set aside to provide an opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Delhi dated 3rd January 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17.
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 2. The appeal is time barred by 186 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT dated 3rd September, 2024 in support of condonation of delay of 186 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to his illness. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex- parte. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 186 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesese is an individual, who filed his return of income on 28.03.2017 showing total income of Rs.2,67,440/- and agriculture income of Rs.27,50,000/-. The assessee derives income from agriculture and house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to submit details of agriculture income, bank account statement, income from milk and bio-products etc. along with documentary evidences. The assessee furnished the copy of ITR, bank account statement, details of agriculture land, copy of khatian, details of rental land, details of sales of agriculture proceeds etc. The (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh assessee declared his total income of Rs.27,50,000/- in the return of income, out of which Rs.12,51,556/- has been claimed as income from rent of agriculture land. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the name and address of parties to whom land given on rent. The assessee submitted that major portion of agriculture land given on rent to Pioneer Overseas Pvt. Limited and rent receipt shown in 26AS also. The assessee further submitted that name of seven other persons to whom land given rent and some small pieces of land were given on rent to seventy other persons. But the assessee did not submit any details, i.e. address of the parties and location of land. On perusal of 26AS, it was found that the assessee has received Rs.5,96,340/- as rent from Pioneer Overseas and remaining amount of Rs.6,55,216/- could not be verified for want of any confirmation from respective parties. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.5,96,340/- as agriculture income from rental land and remaining amount of Rs.6,55,216/- was disallowed as concealed income, which was taken as income from other sources.
4.1. The assessee claimed Rs.4,28,444/- as agriculture income from sale of wheat, potato and onion during the period September to April. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to produce name and address of the parties to whom wheat, potato and onion were sold. The assessee did not submit name and address of the partis. The assessee only submitted the document of possession of agricultural land on which these crops were cultivated. The ITI in his inquiry report submitted that wheat, (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh onion and potato were produced in the land of assessee and some of the document, i.e. old register and kaccha slip were produced in which name and amount of some of the persons were mentioned to whom wheat, onion and potato were sold. In the absence of complete address and confirmation from the parties, genuineness of the receipt of Rs.4,28,444/- could not be verified. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,00,000/- as agriculture income from sale of wheat, potato and onion and treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee.
4.2. With regard to the addition on account of sale of Mango and Litchi, the assessee claimed Rs.9,50,000/- as agriculture income from sale of mango and lichi during the FY 2015-16. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to produce name and address of the parties to whom Mango and Litchi were sold. The assessee only submitted the document of possession of agriculture land on which mango and litchi were produced, but the assessee did not submit the name and address of the parties. In absence of complete address and confirmation from the parties, genuineness of receipt of Rs.9,50,000/- could not be verified. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- as agriculture income from sale of mango and litchi and taken income from other sources of Rs.2,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income.
4.3. With regard to the addition on account of sale of milk and bio-products, old tree and wood, the assessee claimed (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh Rs.1,20,000/- as agriculture income from sale of milk and bio- products. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to bifurcate the amount for sale of milk and for sale of wood. The assessee could not explain the amount received from milk and sale of wood separately. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,20,000/- as agriculture income from sale of milk and bio- products, i.e. old tree and wood and taken as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings.
Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,17,733/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by mentioning in the appellant order that the assessee had no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and not even has argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averment, constraining to dismiss the appeal as no material change has been brought out by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal afresh
At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. The assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him and to decide it afresh. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.