ITAT Condoned 375-Day Appeal Delay as Kidney Treatment Prevented Timely Filing

Adikarnataka Munivenkatappa Suresh Raj (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, condoned a delay of 375 days in filing an appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation that the delay was caused by renal transplant and kidney-related medical treatment. The assessee had filed a return declaring nil income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the large agricultural income declared. During assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished survey-wise details of agricultural land, including mango, coconut, sapota, and neelgiri trees, along with details of capsicum sales amounting to ₹62,47,431.

However, the Assessing Officer held that the agricultural income was not supported by sufficient evidence and added ₹91,41,000 as unexplained income. The assessee’s appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed after four opportunities were provided but no response was filed. Before the Tribunal, the assessee sought condonation of the 375-day delay on medical grounds. The Departmental Representative did not object to the request. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay due to medical reasons, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals (NFAC, Delhi) [in short “CIT(A)”] vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065437438(1) dated 06.06.2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the order passed under section 154of the Act dated 09.11.2022.

2. Brief facts of the case are assesseee-filed his return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the large agricultural income declared by the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 09.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee calling for details. In response to the notice, assessee filed details of land survey number wise claiming the existence of mango, coconut, sapota, neelgiri trees from which agricultural income was claimed to have derived. The assessee also submitted details related to sale of capsicum for a sale consideration of Rs.62,47,431/-. The learned AO found that the agricultural income is not supported by sufficient and necessary evidence and therefore made an addition of Rs.91,41,000/- as unexplained income.

3. On being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) provided 4 opportunities to the assessee to submit his response. The assessee failed to submit any reply to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us with a delay of 375 days. In support of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted hat the assessee was under medical treatment related to renal transplant and kidney related problems. The learned Authorized Representative [in short ^„the AR’] therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the issue may be remanded back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

5. The learned Departmental Representative [in short ^„DR’]did not object to the condonation of delay.

6. We have heard rival contentions and we find that there is sufficient cause to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal due to medical reasons as detailed in the petition for condonation of delay. We therefore condone the delay of 375 days and remand the issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) to consider the submissions made by the assessee after providing an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.