Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 21,02,020, which was disallowed by the AO due to lack of proper explanation. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay in filing, citing non-compliance with Section 249(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) by accepting the reasons provided by the assessee, including the involvement of a representative and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The case was remitted back to the AO for re-examination of the agricultural income.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the agricultural income claimed by the assessee should be re-examined.
Sections Cited
143(3), 249(2), 249(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.02.2024 of the Addl./Jt.CIT(Appeals), Udaipur for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds:-
“ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the order passed u/s 143(3) of the income tax act.1961 herein after referred to as 'the act', in the manner in which he did. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that the appeal filed was not in conformity with the provisions of 249(2)
ITA No. 986/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 6
of the act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) at para 4.3 of his order erred in holding that the appeal was belatedly filed on 23.02.2029. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appeal against order u/s143(1) of the act DATED 12.07.2019 should have been filed within 30 days of receipt of order when the appellant had not challenged the intimation passed u/s143(1) of the act. 5. It is submitted that the CIT(A) has not applied his mind while passing the order u/s 250 of the act and the said order suffers from 'cut, copy and paste disease'. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) as well as authorities below erred in disallowing Rs. 21,20,020 being agricultural income claimed by the appellant. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.11,25,657 and agricultural income of Rs.21,02,020/- and same was processed u/s. 143(1) on 25.05.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued by the AO, but there was no response from the assessee’s side. The AO on the basis of information available with him, he called for information from bank u/s. 133(6). The AO noted that the assessee is a contractor and carrying out agricultural activities also and cash transactions are part of his business. From the information available the AO noted that the
ITA No. 986/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6
assessee has not stated about the maintenance of books of account and noted that assessee has adopted GP rate @ 8.49% and net profit is 3.22% as per P&L account. The AO made addition only towards agricultural income of Rs.21,02,020 for want of proper explanation and completed assessment on 26.12.2019. Against the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 29.06.2020.
The CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee did not file appeal within the due date prescribed u/s. 249(2)(e) of the Act. The assessee filed reasons in the statement of facts for delay in filing the appeal which has been extracted by the CIT(A) in his order and noted that there was no reasonable cause in terms of section 249(3) of the Act. Accordingly he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
There is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and filed affidavit stating that the counsel’s office generated Form 36 on the portal on 12.03.2024 but did not proceed further as his office presumed that generation of Form 36 is considered as appeal filed finally before the Tribunal as e-filing process was newly introduced by the Portal. In the second week of May, 2024 when the appellant sought for acknowledgement of filing appeal from counsel, it was known that Form 36 was only generated but had not been filed. Immediately all the relevant documents were attached and process of
ITA No. 986/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 6
e-filing was concluded with a delay of 24 days. For the above reasons, condonation of delay is requested.
After hearing both the parties, it is observed that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.
The ld. AR submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and residing in rural area and notices received were handed over to local representative to attend it diligently as required under law. The said consultant did not represent the case of the assessee. The order was sent by the department in email of the representative of the assessee and the said fact was not brought into the knowledge of the assessee and there was no physical copy of order sent to the assessee and he was totally dependent upon the representative of the assessee. Further he submitted that Covid period started in Oct.-Nov. 2019 and it was spreading rapidly and being a senior citizen, assessee was unable to move outside. Later on, the Govt. declared Covid-19 pandemic on 23.03.2020. Somehow the appeal was instituted on 29.06.2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also granted extended time limit during the Covid period, so there was delay of hardly two months which could have been accepted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and without going into the merits of the case, he has dismissed the appeal of assessee ex parte. The ld. AR requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, he
ITA No. 986/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 6
undertook to respond to the notices and substantiate the case of the assessee with evidence before the lower authorities.
On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the AO granted various opportunities which is clear from the assessment order. However, there was no response from the assessee’s side. The assessee did not produce any documents of land ownership certificates, type of crops, sale bill and crops grown and expenses towards earning of agricultural income. Therefore, the AO made addition towards agricultural income only. The assessee could have produced it before the CIT(Appeals) also.
Considering the rival submissions we note that the assessment order was passed on 26.12.2019 and appeal was instituted on 29.06.2020 and there is dispute only regarding agricultural income declared by the assessee in its return of income. The AO gave various opportunities. On going through the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee, we note that assessee is a senior citizen and during the appellate proceedings Covid was spreading in India since Oct./Nov. 2019, but it was announced by the Govt. on 23.03.2020. The assessee handed over documents to the representative of the assessee who was handling the case and the said representative did not comply as per the requirement. Therefore it is not the fault of the assessee in not complying the statutory requirements by tax representative of the assessee which is a reasonable cause. After considering the delay period, there is only two months delay in filing the appeal before the
ITA No. 986/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 6
CIT(Appeals) and considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and the case is remitted back to the AO for examination of agricultural income declared by the assessee of Rs.21,02,020. The assessee is directed to update its email id, communication address and other details and file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 05th day of August, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 05th August, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.