Om Prakash Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
₹5.19 Crore Assessment, One More Chance: ITAT Sends Farmer’s Case Back to AO
Fresh Adjudication Despite Repeated Non-Compliance
The Agra Tribunal restored an assessment involving ₹5,18,80,567 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after noting that both the assessment and the first appellate proceedings had concluded ex parte.
The Tribunal also condoned a delay of approximately 286 days in filing the appeal, accepting the explanation that the assessee was an illiterate senior citizen and farmer suffering from medical ailments.
However, the relief was limited to a fresh examination. The Tribunal did not delete either addition or decide the taxability of the property transactions or vehicle investment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Non-Filer Faced Substantial Additions
The assessee had not filed a return for the relevant assessment year. The AO completed the assessment on 6 March 2023 under Sections 147 and 144, determining total income of ₹5,18,80,567.
The assessed amount comprised ₹5,06,50,000 described in the order as unexplained short-term capital gain arising from the sale of two immovable properties, together with ₹12,30,567 as unexplained investment in a motor vehicle.
The Tribunal’s brief order does not set out the acquisition history of the properties, their nature, the computation of capital gains or the evidence concerning the vehicle purchase. Consequently, the description of the property addition should be understood as the assessment treatment recorded in the order, rather than a classification independently endorsed by the Tribunal.
The assessee challenged the assessment before the CIT(A), but that appeal was also decided without his participation.
Age, Illiteracy and Illness Explained the Delay
The CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 21 May 2025. The assessee filed his Tribunal appeal on 12 May 2026, and the Registry reported a delay of approximately 286 days.
In his condonation application, the assessee explained that he was an illiterate elderly farmer and had been undergoing medical treatment during the relevant period. Those circumstances prevented him from taking timely action.
He maintained that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but arose from circumstances beyond his control.
The Tribunal accepted the explanation as sufficient cause and condoned the delay in the interest of justice. This enabled the appeal to be considered rather than rejected at the threshold on limitation.
Three Appellate Notices Had Gone Unanswered
The assessee’s grounds included a complaint that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.
On examining the record, the Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had issued notices dated 8 January, 4 March and 6 May 2025. The assessee had not responded to any of them.
The Tribunal expressly observed that the CIT(A) had consequently been compelled to decide the appeal ex parte. It also stated that the assessee’s non-cooperative conduct could not be appreciated.
This is an important qualification to the outcome. The Tribunal did not find that the appellate authority had issued no notices or that every ex parte order necessarily violated natural justice. Its decision to grant another opportunity followed consideration of the overall circumstances, including the earlier best-judgment assessment under Section 144.
No Appearance Before the Tribunal Either
Nobody appeared for the assessee at the Tribunal hearing. An adjournment request moved on his behalf was rejected.
The Bench nevertheless examined the available material and heard the Departmental Representative. Before entering into the substantive merits, it considered the fact that both stages below had proceeded without effective participation by the assessee.
The Tribunal therefore decided that the dispute should receive a fresh factual examination at the assessment stage. The absence of representation at the Tribunal did not prevent it from granting that procedural relief.
Matter Restored to the Assessing Officer
The Tribunal remanded the matter directly to the AO, rather than merely restoring the first appeal to the CIT(A).
That direction is significant because the original assessment itself had been completed under Section 144. Fresh proceedings before the AO would allow the assessee to present his explanation and supporting documents concerning the property sales and vehicle investment.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative, attend hearings and make submissions so that the proceedings could be completed effectively and expeditiously.
Correspondingly, the AO was directed to observe the principles of natural justice. The additions remain subject to fresh adjudication; no substantive finding was recorded in the assessee’s favour.
Author’s Comments
The ruling illustrates the distinction between granting another opportunity and accepting the taxpayer’s explanation on merits. The assessee secured a rehearing because of his circumstances and the ex parte history of the proceedings. He still has to substantiate his position before the AO.
For the fresh assessment, the property acquisition documents, sale deeds, evidence of ownership and holding period, capital gains computation and source of vehicle investment will be important. The Tribunal’s order does not establish that the properties were exempt agricultural land or that the vehicle purchase came from explained funds.
The opportunity also carries a clear expectation: the assessee must now participate actively. The Tribunal recognised his difficulties while expressly disapproving repeated non-compliance. The practical benefit of the remand will depend on a complete, timely and documented response in the restored proceedings.
Alternative SEO Titles:
1. ₹5.18 Crore Ex-Parte Assessment Restored to AO for Fresh Adjudication: ITAT Agra
2. ITAT Agra Remands ₹5.18 Crore Assessment Despite Assessee’s Repeated Non-Compliance
3. Ex-Parte ₹5.18 Crore Assessment Gets Fresh Hearing Before AO: ITAT Agra
4. 286-Day Delay Condoned and Ex-Parte Assessment Remanded to AO: ITAT Agra
5. Senior Citizen Gets Fresh Hearing in ₹5.18 Crore Assessment: ITAT Agra
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10240279 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.
2. At the very outset, we notice that, according to registry’s report, the assessee filed this second appeal on 12.05.2026 against the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 by a delay of about 286 days. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that, assessee is an illiterate senior citizen and farmer. That apart, the appellant assessee was suffering from medical ailments and was undergoing treatment during the relevant period and hence could not seek timely action. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but beyond the control of the appellant. Prayed to condone the delay. In the interest of justice, we treat the aforesaid cause as sufficient and condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
3. The assessee is a non-filer. The assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was passed u/s 147/144 of the Act, determining total income of the assessee as Rs. 5,18,80,567/- (Rs. 5,06,50,000/- as unexplained short term capital gain on account of sale of two immovable properties + Rs. 12,30,567/- as unexplained investment in motor vehicle).
4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order, which was dismissed by ld CIT(A) as ex-parte.
5. This second appeal has been preferred by the assessee on the ground in addition to many others that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to assessee.
6. None responded for the appellant assessee. The adjournment moved on behalf of the appellant assessee was rejected. We have perused the material available on record. Heard ld CIT(DR) for the respondent revenue.
7. Before we enter into the merits of the case, we find that notices dated 08.01.2025, 04.03.2025 & 06.05.2025 were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee. The assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. We further note that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte as best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld AO for fresh adjudication on merits. We, further, direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the ld AO for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that ld AO shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 28.09.2026
