Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was rejected by the CIT(A)/NFAC for want of advance tax payment, upholding the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 13,50,000/- as unexplained investment. The assessee appealed this decision.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order did not discuss the advance tax liability or provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged default. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC rightly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax without affording an opportunity for rectification and adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 249(4)(b), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Surender Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o J. B. Sharma, Adv., Ward-4, 72, BMK Market, NR Hotel Hive, G. Panipat, T. Road, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana-132103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CFHPS7057B Assessee by : Sh. J. B. Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059098895(1) dated 27.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee's lower appeal "in limine" for want of payment of advance tax thereby invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have upheld the Assessing Officer's
The Revenue could hardly dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC's lower appellate discussion about the assessee's advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default, if any. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it's afresh adjudication on merits, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to a rider that the assessee shall be the taxpayer's onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.