Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2013-14 and did not pay advance tax. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-admission under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee claimed that their income was below the exemption limit.
Held
The Tribunal held that since there was no computation of taxable income and no tax payable, the question of advance tax payable did not arise. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 249(4) of the Act. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-admission under Section 249(4)(b) when no taxable income was computed or advance tax was payable by the assessee.
Sections Cited
249(4)(b), 148, 147, 144B, 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 05.06.2025 23.07.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 06.11.2024 for the AY 2013-14 in not admitting the appeal filed by the assessee.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed return of income and not paid the advance tax which was payable by the assessee and thus, the Ld. CIT(A) 1 dismissed the appeal at the threshold invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b). Ld. Counsel submits that the income of the assessee was below the exemption limit and thus, the assessee was neither required to file return of income nor required to pay advance tax. Ld. Counsel thus, submits that there is no justification in not admitting the appeal by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the above submissions:
• Smt. Sushma Singhal vs. ITO, dated 25.02.2025 (Nag). • Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 803 (Raipur). • Sanjeev Kumar Jindal vs. ITO, dated 27.09.2024 (Del). • Ritika Jain vs. ITO, ITA No. 168/2023, dated 03.12.2024 (Agra).
Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the assessee an individual did not file return of income for the AY 2013-14. Based on the information available with the Department it was noticed that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.99,24,000/- into State Bank of Patiala, Karnal, Haryana and Rs.18,74,000/- into Punjab & Sindh Bank, Gharanunda. 2 Notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.07.2022 requiring the assessee to file return of income. The assessee did not file any return in response to such notice and the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by order dated 12.05.2023.
Against this order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not file return of income and pay the advance tax which was due on the income.
It is the contention of the assessee that there was no taxable income and the income was below the exemption limit and thus he was not required to file return of income and pay advance tax. The coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sanjeev Kumar dated 27.09.2024 for the AY 2013-14 on identical facts restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. NFAC for denovo adjudication in accordance with law observing as under: -
“ITA No.1412/Del/2024 for AY 2013-14 7. The facts hereinabove are identical to assessment year 2013-14 except the fact that no return of income was filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14, either u/s 139(1) of the Act or in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. When no return has been filed, the appeal filed by the assessee shall not be admitted by Id CIT(A)/ NFAC if the advance tax payable by the assessee was not paid. But in the instant case, there is no computation of taxable income made by the assessee on his own. Hence, there was no tax that was determined to be payable by the assessee. When there is no determination of tax payable, the question of advance tax payable does not arise. Further the fact as to whether the assessee was having any taxable income or not for this year is not available on record. Hence, there cannot be any violation of provisions of Section 249(4) of the Act. Hence, we hold that the Id NFAC erred in not admitting the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the Id NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is given liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of his contentions.”
Similar view has been taken by various Benches of the Tribunal as referred to above. Thus, respectfully following the above decision, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. NFAC for denovo adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2025