RAJASHREE ANNASAHEB PATIL,BELGAUM, KARNATAKA vs. KAR-W-(521)(1), BELAGAVI
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, did not file an income tax return. The AO, based on information of agricultural land sale for Rs. 65,00,000, initiated reassessment proceedings and made an addition of short-term capital gain under Section 144 due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 69-day delay in filing and lack of sufficient explanation.
Held
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay application and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The tribunal emphasized providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, considering principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and the validity of the addition of short-term capital gain from the sale of agricultural land.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 147, Section 250, Section 148, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. No.486/PAN/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, I T O, Vs Near Murasidda Temple, National e Assessment . Gandhi Galli Bhiradi, Centre, Raybag,Belgaum-591217, Delhi Karnataka. PAN No. EJFPP4199R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
Assessee by Shri.Shivanand HalbhaviAR Revenue by Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख 10.03.2026 /Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 144 r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A)(i) not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A)and (ii) sustaining the addition of entire agricultural land sale consideration.
2 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is agriculturist and has not filed the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA NMS found that the assessee has sold immovable property/ agricultural land for Rs.65,00,000/- during the F.Y2017-18.The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and further notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for the details and there was no compliance. Further the Assessing Officer has issued notices u/sec142(1) of the Act on the assessee to explain the transactions of sale of immovable property and also show cause notice was issued, but there was no compliance by the assessee. Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and made addition of short term capital gain of Rs.65,00,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.65,00,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144r.w.s147 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 30.01.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) find that there is a delay of 69 days in filling the appeal and the assessee has not filed/ explained the sufficient reasons/cause for the delay and the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee appeal in
3 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil. limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee is a agriculturist and has sold the agricultural land along with other co-owners. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee lives in a village and do not have any knowledge of income tax provisions and the delay was not a wanton act but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld.AR also emphasized that no notice of hearing was issued and no opportunity was granted to substantiate the submissions with the evidences and the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the material evidences before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no compliance by the assesse in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with the reasonable cause and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition of short term capital gains on sale of agricultural land made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit and application u/sec
4 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil. 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. Hence considering the facts, circumstances, submissions of the Ld.AR and principles of natural justice, shall provide with one more opportunity to the assessee.Further the assessee to file the application and affidavit for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) explaining the sufficient and reasonable cause and the CIT(A) should fallow a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is setaside and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits after considering the application of condonation of delay. The assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.03.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMAHSHALI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 10/03/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to:
5 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil. 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS
Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed
6 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil.
