DIVEY DIPTI CHOPRA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5443/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's rejection of the assessee's appeals in limine under section 249(4)(b) of the Act for non-payment of admitted advance tax was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that there was no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC's order quantifying the assessee's advance tax liability, nor was any prior notice or opportunity granted to the assessee to address this specific issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the direction that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adjudicate the matters afresh within three effective opportunities, subject to the condition that the taxpayer pleads and proves their case at their own risk and responsibility. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Divey Dipti Chopra, filed appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. These orders were dated 27.09.2024 and involved proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue representative informed the Tribunal that the CIT(A)/NFAC had rejected the assessee's lower appeals in limine by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act, citing non-payment of admitted advance tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in rejecting the assessee's appeals in limine under section 249(4)(b) of the Act for non-payment of admitted advance tax, without quantifying the liability or providing prior notice. Assessee's contentions: The judgment records no arguments from the assessee as they remained ex-parte. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue representative acknowledged that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order did not indicate any quantification of the assessee's advance tax liability or any prior notice or opportunity granted to the assessee regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 27.05.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals & 5443/Del/2024 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 27.09.2024 having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069184649(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2024-25/1069184520(1) involving proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A)/NFAC has invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act for rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine for want of a payment of his admitted advance tax.

4.

Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that there is no indication in the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order quantifying the assessee’s liability of advance tax or any prior notice or opportunity granted to him to this clinching effect.

5.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

All 347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →