Sri. Malligere Channabasappa Veerabhadhadrappa, Channagiri V. Income-Tax Officer, ward-2(1), Davangere

ITA 520/BANG/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Malligere Channabasappa against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which was prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. The primary contention was the incorrect classification of agricultural income as 'Income from other sources' and the procedural inadequacies in the handling of the appeal. The appellant argued that the faceless appeal scheme was new, leading to unawareness of the procedure, which resulted in non-responsiveness to hearing notices. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a fresh opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), considering the procedural complexities and the substantive issues raised regarding the classification of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129429 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP CHALAPATHY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

ITA No.520/Bang/2023 Malligere Channabasappa, Channagiri IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.520/Bang/2023 AssessmentYear:2016-17 Malligere Channabasappa Veerabhadrappa 154, Malligerera Beedi Pandomatti Channagiri-577 213 PAN NO : AFWPV0108F Vs. ITO Ward-2(1) Devangere APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2023 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order passed by the NFAC Delhi dated 11.05.2023 DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052755686(1) for the assessment year 2016-17 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre erred in law and facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte on the ground that the appellant did not respond to the hearing notice 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre erred in law and facts in not appreciating ITA No.520/Bang/2023 Malligere Channabasappa, Channagiri Page 2 of 5 the fact that the faceless appeal scheme was newlyintroduced and therefore, the appellant was not aware of the procedure that the hearingnotices will be issued only to the email id and therefore, could not file the responses 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre ought to have held that the amount of Rs.40,39,869/- is agricultural income and not 'Income from other sources'. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre ought to have not relied on the report of the ICAR — Central Plantation Crops Research Institute to assess the agricultural income as the same is only a reference document and not conclusion 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre ought to have ken into consideration the inter-crops grown in the agricultural land along with the arecanut. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant seeks the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or modify otherwise each or any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing this appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 09 days, which was stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay that the assessee was unwell. Therefore, he could not sign and submit before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Considering the explanation of the assessee, I condone the delay of 09 days relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 09.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.339/- and agricultural income of Rs.75,34,109/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee and the details were called for. The assessee has submitted reply and it ITA No.520/Bang/2023 Malligere Channabasappa, Channagiri Page 3 of 5 was noticed that the only source of income of the assessee is agricultural income and he submitted that he owns the following land and crops, which are grown as under: Name of village Survey No. Extent of Land Crop grown Saavehadlu 7 9 acres, 2 guntas Arecanut Tippagondanahalli 14 2 acres, 22 guntas Arecanut Pandomatti 102 0 acres, 30 guntas Arecanut 3.1 From the above table, it was noticed that the assessee is the owner of 12.4 acres of agricultural land and has grown Areca nut and has earned agricultural income of Rs.77,30,109/- from the sale of Areca nut during the year. For the verification of these receipts, the Inspector of the Range was directed to visit the above agricultural land holdings and make an inspection of the land holdings, crops grown, irrigation facilities, etc. Accordingly, the inspector has submitted the report and it has been incorporated by the AO in his order and further information was also gathered from Areca nut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore. Further, it was noted that in one acre of land approximately 540 plants can be planted and average yield per acre of well-maintained land is 12 Quintals per acre and the average price was considered at Rs.310 per kg and the average expenses for maintenance is Rs.1,20,000/- per acre of land. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee has submitted reply. The AO calculated the excess amount of Rs.40,39,869/-, which was over and above from the determined agricultural income of Rs.36,90,240/- and it was brought to tax as income from other sources and added into the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has issued 6 notices to the assessee and it was delivered on the registered e-mail of the assessee but the assessee did not appear for any of the notices. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of ITA No.520/Bang/2023 Malligere Channabasappa, Channagiri Page 4 of 5 the assessee. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed above appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. The ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that no notice was received by the assessee. Otherwise, he would have represented the case. He has filed a small paper book containing 1 to 17 pages and it was filed before the ld. AO also. He requested that if a chance is given to the assessee for representing afresh before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee will substantiate his case. 5. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) issued various notices inspite of which, the assessee did not take any steps for representing his case and the ld. CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits of the case, therefore, the assessee should not be given another chance to appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. Considering the rival submission, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has issued notices on the registered e-mail ID of the assessee. However, the case of the assessee was not responded. The ld. AO has made addition on the basis of past results. Considering the prayer of the assessee & in the interest of justice, this matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee not to seek any unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case and the assessee can file requisite documents for substantiating his case and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue as per law. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.520/Bang/2023 Malligere Channabasappa, Channagiri Page 5 of 5 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 th Sept, 2023 Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 25 th Sept, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.