Ramesh Vittal Pawar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Pune ITAT Restores Agricultural Income Addition for Fresh Verification After Assessee Produces Land Records and Crop Sale Evidence
The Pune ITAT held that where an assessee’s claim of agricultural income was rejected solely for want of supporting evidence during the assessment and first appellate proceedings, the matter deserved to be restored for fresh verification in the interest of justice. The Tribunal first condoned the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee’s explanation that notices had been sent to the tax consultant’s email, resulting in a communication gap, and held that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. On merits, it noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the entire gross agricultural receipts of ₹70.06 lakh as taxable, as the assessee had failed to furnish details of agricultural land holdings and expenditure incurred for cultivation. Before the Tribunal, however, the assessee produced a comprehensive paper book containing 7/12 land extracts, crop details, agricultural sale bills, sales ledger, bank statements and loan records to substantiate the agricultural operations. Considering these documents, the Tribunal held that the claim required proper factual verification and accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities, restoring the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 51 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. Main reason for delay is stated to be that the notices were sent on the email id of the Tax Consultant who did not inform the assesssee. Due to this communication gap, assessee could not comply with said notices. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
3. The only issue for our consideration is disallowance of Agricultural income made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.70,05,962/-.
4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is into Agricultural activity for past many years and maintains complete details as placed in the paper book running into 304 pages. He however submitted that certain details could not be filed before the Assessing Officer and subsequently before ld.CIT(A) claim of Agricultural income remained unsubstantiated as no satisfactory proof nor explanation was provided. He only prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification of record to which ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but did not object to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that in the return f income for A.Y. 2020-21 filed on 28.01.2021 assessee has shown Agricultural income at Rs.34,21,102/-. During the course of assessment proceedings carried out u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown gross Agricultural income at Rs.70.05.962/- and claimed expenditure at Rs.35,84,860/-. However, for want of necessary details about the agricultural land holding of the assessee as well as incidental expenditure incurred for carrying out the Agricultural activity ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and made addition of Rs.70,05,962/-. Before the First Appellate Authority also assessee failed to succeed as necessary details could not be filed.
6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has furnished paper book which provides copy of land holding and crop details as per 7/12 extract, sales ledger of Agricultural income, sale bills of agricultural produce and bank statements and loan statements from bank to demonstrate that regular agricultural activity has been carried out.
7. Considering all these, we are of the considered opinion that in the larger interest of justice, the issue of Agricultural income needs verification and deserves to be set aside to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary adjudication to be carried out considering the details to be filed by the assessee. In view thereof, the issue is remitted back to the file of ld. JAO. Needless to mention that ld. JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on theITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026.
