M/S EMINENT SUPPLIERS P LTD,DHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL, UJJAIN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.
What were the facts?
The assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A) against orders of the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine, holding them not maintainable due to non-payment of tax on the returned income.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal is maintainable before the CIT(A) when the tax on the returned income has not been paid in full, despite the appellant claiming paucity of funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM
This group of six appeals is directed against the different orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Indore dated 31.10.2017/15.12.2017 on the following common grounds of appeal
s: “1. That, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, unjust and contrary to the facts of the case.
2. That, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the grounds raised by the appellant on merits.
[ITA Nos.43 to 46/Ind/2018 & & 192/Ind/2018] [M/s. Eminent Suppliers P. Ltd. and others, Dist. Dhar]
3. That, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act without considering the material fact that the appellant was passing through acute paucity of funds.
That, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided further opportunity to make payment of tax on admitted income before deciding the appeal.” 2. Notices for hearing on 06.5.2019 i.e. today were issued to the assessees at the address given in the Form No.36. Despite this, nobody represented the assessees today. Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A).
On perusal of the material available on record, we find that ld. CIT(A) found that the tax on the returned income for which the appeals have been filed has not been paid in full. A report was called from the JCIT-(Central), Indore and it was reported that tax is still outstanding for the return filed originally u/s 139(1) and also in the return filed u/s 153A. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals treating the same as not maintainable on account of non- payment of outstanding tax on returned income. Even before us, there is no evidence suggesting that the outstanding tax was paid
[ITA Nos.43 to 46/Ind/2018 & & 192/Ind/2018] [M/s. Eminent Suppliers P. Ltd. and others, Dist. Dhar] on the returned income. Earlier vide order dated 30.4.2019 in group assessees’ appeals i.e. IT(SS)A Nos.1 to 3/Ind/2018 and others, the same view was taken by this Tribunal. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT(A). Same are confirmed. 4. Accordingly, appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2019.
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 →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026