LAKSHMI NAYAK,SIMILIGUDA, KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that taxes to the extent of Rs. 11,39,440/- had already been recovered as per Form 26AS, which was in excess of the advance tax payable. The CIT(A) erred in not considering this and dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in vegetable and fruit business, deposited Rs. 11,07,538/- in her bank account during demonetization and did not file an income tax return. The AO treated Rs. 11,05,000/- as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of advance tax when substantial taxes were already recovered and reflected in Form 26AS. Whether the matter should be restored to the AO for proper adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.02.2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060729562(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual doing business in the purchase and sale of vegetable and fruits. It was the submission that the assessee had deposited Rs.11,07,538/- in her bank account during the demonetization period. It was the submission that as the assessee did not have any income liable for taxing, the assessee had not filed her return of income. It was the submission that the AO on the ground that the assessee has deposited Rs.11,05,000/- in her bank account during the demonetisation period, initiated assessment proceedings against the assessee and completed the assessment ex- parte treating the amount of Rs.11,05,000/- as the unexplained income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 09.02.2024 holding that as per provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal is not to be admitted unless the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him, if no return of income has been filed. Ld. AR placed before us the Form 26AS/Annual tax statement for the assessment year 2017-2018, wherein it shows that an amount of Rs.11,39,440/- has already been paid as on 21st March, 2020 much before the filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. It was the submission that in the interest of justice, the issues may be restored to the file of AO so that the assessee can explain the deposit of Rs.11,05,000/-.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the amount of Rs.11,39,440/- were the recoveries and not the advance tax. It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, in the present case, before filing of the appeal itself, the taxes to an extent of Rs.11,39,440/- has already been recovered. The said amount is shown in the credit of the assessee in the Form 26AS. Once the amount is recovered from the assessee, it forms part of the taxes paid by the assessee and the same is far in excess of the amount of advance tax which was payable. The assessee admittedly has not filed the return of income and has claimed that she does not have any income chargeable to tax under the head income from profit and gains and business or
More judgments on Section 249(4)
- Sea Side Hotel Private Limited, Mumbai vs Ward 11(2)(1), MumbaiITA 7336/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Gurujala Babu Rao, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-11(1), HyderabadITA 884/HYD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Deep Bahadur Singh, Rewa vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, RewaITA 94/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Arcotech Ltd, Rewari vs ACIT CC-7, DelhiITA 3470/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Kanersar VI Ka Society, Pune vs The ITO Ward 8(3), PuneITA 2042/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026