Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 33 days. The assessee, working as a teacher, claimed to have done cultivation on land that was sold, but failed to produce documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer. A letter from the Mukhia was the only document produced.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence regarding the land's agricultural nature was not produced during the assessment. To ensure justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal, barred by 33 days, should be admitted and whether the Assessing Officer should be directed to reconsider the case for lack of documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
IT Act sections
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC BENCH”, PATNA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarpur Sakra Dholi, Majholia, Chandanpatti, Muzaffarpur PAN No. :AOXPG 2700 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Assessee present in person राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.12.2024 for the assessment year 2016-2017.
The assessee Rajeev Kumar Gupta, present in person and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false and also the ld.Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
4. It was submitted by the assessee that he is working as a teacher in a private school. He was doing cultivation on land which was sold. It was the submission that admittedly documents in respect of the land had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee would be able to produce the document to prove his claim.
In reply, ld.Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection.
I have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the documents to prove that the land is agriculture in nature was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings and only a letter of Mukhia was produced. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce the documentary evidence to substantiate his claim in the readjudication proceedings before the Assessing Officer, positively.