RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR V. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 573/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Singh, the appellant, who contested the order of the ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary contention was the ex-parte dismissal of his appeal by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), which was based on the absence of the assessee and lack of supporting arguments or evidence. The ITAT noted the procedural oversight and the absence of the assessee's knowledge about the hearing date, leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713152 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 573/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Rajesh Singh,……………..……………...….………Appellant Maniyarpur, Hajipur-800450, Bihar [PAN:ARYPS7745P] -Vs.- Addl./JCIT, Delhi,…………………………...…….Respondent National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Delhi dated 3rd January 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 186 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT dated 3rd September, 2024 in support of condonation of delay of 186 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to his illness. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex- parte. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 186 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese is an individual, who filed his return of income on 28.03.2017 showing total income of Rs.2,67,440/- and agriculture income of Rs.27,50,000/-. The assessee derives income from agriculture and house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to submit details of agriculture income, bank account statement, income from milk and bio-products etc. along with documentary evidences. The assessee furnished the copy of ITR, bank account statement, details of agriculture land, copy of khatian, details of rental land, details of sales of agriculture proceeds etc. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 3 assessee declared his total income of Rs.27,50,000/- in the return of income, out of which Rs.12,51,556/- has been claimed as income from rent of agriculture land. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the name and address of parties to whom land given on rent. The assessee submitted that major portion of agriculture land given on rent to Pioneer Overseas Pvt. Limited and rent receipt shown in 26AS also. The assessee further submitted that name of seven other persons to whom land given rent and some small pieces of land were given on rent to seventy other persons. But the assessee did not submit any details, i.e. address of the parties and location of land. On perusal of 26AS, it was found that the assessee has received Rs.5,96,340/- as rent from Pioneer Overseas and remaining amount of Rs.6,55,216/- could not be verified for want of any confirmation from respective parties. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.5,96,340/- as agriculture income from rental land and remaining amount of Rs.6,55,216/- was disallowed as concealed income, which was taken as income from other sources. 4.1. The assessee claimed Rs.4,28,444/- as agriculture income from sale of wheat, potato and onion during the period September to April. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to produce name and address of the parties to whom wheat, potato and onion were sold. The assessee did not submit name and address of the partis. The assessee only submitted the document of possession of agricultural land on which these crops were cultivated. The ITI in his inquiry report submitted that wheat, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 4 onion and potato were produced in the land of assessee and some of the document, i.e. old register and kaccha slip were produced in which name and amount of some of the persons were mentioned to whom wheat, onion and potato were sold. In the absence of complete address and confirmation from the parties, genuineness of the receipt of Rs.4,28,444/- could not be verified. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,00,000/- as agriculture income from sale of wheat, potato and onion and treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.2. With regard to the addition on account of sale of Mango and Litchi, the assessee claimed Rs.9,50,000/- as agriculture income from sale of mango and lichi during the FY 2015-16. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to produce name and address of the parties to whom Mango and Litchi were sold. The assessee only submitted the document of possession of agriculture land on which mango and litchi were produced, but the assessee did not submit the name and address of the parties. In absence of complete address and confirmation from the parties, genuineness of receipt of Rs.9,50,000/- could not be verified. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- as agriculture income from sale of mango and litchi and taken income from other sources of Rs.2,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income. 4.3. With regard to the addition on account of sale of milk and bio-products, old tree and wood, the assessee claimed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 5 Rs.1,20,000/- as agriculture income from sale of milk and bio- products. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to bifurcate the amount for sale of milk and for sale of wood. The assessee could not explain the amount received from milk and sale of wood separately. Hence, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,20,000/- as agriculture income from sale of milk and bio- products, i.e. old tree and wood and taken as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.31,17,733/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by mentioning in the appellant order that the assessee had no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and not even has argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averment, constraining to dismiss the appeal as no material change has been brought out by the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal afresh Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 6 after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. 8. At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). 9. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. The assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him and to decide it afresh. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 573/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Rajesh Singh 7 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/07/2025. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 28th day of July, 2025 Copies to :(1) Rajesh Singh, Maniyarpur, Hajipur-800450, Bihar (2) Addl./JCIT, Delhi, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi (3) CIT - , (4) The Departmental Representative; (5) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com "