Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, did not file an ITR for AY 2011-12, but had a large cash deposit. His case was reopened under Section 148, and he explained the deposit was from the sale of agricultural land. The AO treated the land as a capital asset under Section 2(14) and added the sale consideration, while the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal to ITAT, finding it bonafide. It remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the nature of the land sold, specifically its distance from municipal limits as per Section 2(14), after providing the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act; and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
Sections Cited
2(14), 143(3), 147, 148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
The above captioned appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (for short, CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. CIT(A)- Rohtak/10151/2019-20 for 1 | P a g e
ITA 5214/DEL/2025 SUMER SINGH, REWARI VS. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (for short, AO) u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2018.
At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 574 days. An application for condonation along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been explained therein that the assessee is a semi- literate agriculturist who was unaware about the password of e-mail id created by his Counsel due to which he was unable to make any compliance to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). No physical copy of the appellate order was received by the assessee, due to which the appeal was filed belatedly as he remained unaware about the dismissal of his appeal.
In view of the facts explained by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay was caused due to genuine and bonafide reasons and the same is, therefore, being condoned.
The grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: “(a) That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 29.11.2023 is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice as the same has been dismissed ex parte without providing proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant. (b) That the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust, and deserves to be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to decide the matter on legal grounds as well as on merits of the case. (c) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised by the appellant. (d) That the initiation of reassessment proceedings and consequent framing of assessment is bad in law and void ab initio. (e) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, or amend the above grounds before or at the time of hearing. ” 2 | P a g e
ITA 5214/DEL/2025 SUMER SINGH, REWARI VS. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist who had not filed his return for AY. 2011-12. As per information available with the IT department, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 66,50,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with Yes Bank Limited, during F.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide issue of notice dated 29.03.2018. The assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 1,60,190/- on 06.08.2018 in response to this notice. During the course of proceedings, the assessee explained that he had sold an agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 1,24,32,000/- during F.Y. 2010- 11 and the money received has been deposited in his bank account. The assessee also furnished a copy of the sale deed in support of his claim. Ld. AO noticed from the sale deed that the impugned land was situated within 5 kms of the municipal limits, and, therefore, treated it as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act and added the entire amount of sale consideration to the returned income of the assessee. Assessment was accordingly completed u/s 143(3) at an income of Rs. 1,25,92,190/- vide order dated 13.12.2018.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance is made to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) except an application of adjournment filed by the assessee on 07.11.2023, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2023.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that no proper opportunity of being heard was given by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Reasons of non-compliance before Ld. CIT(A) have been explained in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay. Ld. AR has further
ITA 5214/DEL/2025 SUMER SINGH, REWARI VS. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI submitted that the issue regarding the nature of land has not been examined properly by the lower authorities. He has, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short, J.A.O) to ascertain the distance of the impugned land from the municipal limits as required u/s 2(14) of the Act to determine whether it is an agricultural land or otherwise.
The Ld. DR has not objected to the above said proposition.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the J.A.O for fresh examination of the issue regarding nature of the land sold, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make requisite compliance before the J.A.O.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22-12-2025.