SRI SRINIVASA AND COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 513/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 November 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that remitting the matter to the CIT(A) would serve the interest of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of self-assessment tax. The assessee later paid the entire self-assessment tax liability before the CIT(A)'s order date and requested the matter be remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal due to delayed payment of self-assessment tax, and if the matter should be remitted for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal
For Respondent: Smt. Haritha
Hearing: 22/11/2021Pronounced: 23/11/2021

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Srinivasa and Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Company, Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 9(1), PAN – AANFS 7941P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mohd. Afzal Revenue by: Smt. Haritha Date of hearing: 22/11/2021 Date of pronouncement: 23/11/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s order dated 28/02/2020 for AY 2007-08 involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act.

2.

In the grounds of appeal, the primary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee paid self assessment tax before 28/02/2020, which is the date of order u/s 250 of the IT

:- 2 -: Sri Srinivasa and Company, Hyd.

Act, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal without considering the explanation of the assessee for delayed payment for self-assessment tax.

3.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the in the assessment order, the AO has made additions towards unexplained income on fixed assets of Rs. 28,00,000/- and of Rs. 60,71,650/- towards difference of business income and estimated income.

4.

When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) not admitted the appeal of the assessee by holding that since appellant has not paid the tax admitted on the income returned, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be admitted.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee filed a note, in which, inter-alia, it was stated that the default of not paying the self-assessment tax on account of business losses incurred by the assessee during the period relevant to the assessment years 2011-12 and subsequently, the assessee raised personal loans and cleared the entire liability of self- assessment tax on 25/02/2020. The ld. AR, therefore,

:- 3 -: Sri Srinivasa and Company, Hyd. requested the Bench to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

7.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, agreed to the submissions made by the AR of the assessee.

8.

We have considered the facts of the case and the request made by the learned AR. We are of the view that interest of justice will be served if the matter is restored to the file of first appellate authority for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits by admitting the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. We direct the assessee to appear before CIT(A) with all the relevant evidences; at its own risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd November, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →