Facts
The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, as the demand was not paid before filing. The assessee claimed the property transactions were made by his brother and he was only included for namesake.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the return filed by the assessee declaring NIL income, which should have been taken into account. Considering the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal could be dismissed for non-payment of demand without considering the return filed declaring NIL income and the provisions of Section 249(4).
Sections Cited
250, 249(4), 148, 156, 69, 208, 234B(1), 143, 140A, 147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &
Appellant) : Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 : Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 O R D E R
Per Padmavathy S, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 25.08.2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
Assifuddin Mehboob Khan “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the provisions of Section 249(4) in as much as he did not pay the demand raised of Rs. 43,44,947 before filing the appeal.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had filed his return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 and there was no tax liability which was payable by him as per the said return of income.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice, the learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the requirement to make the payment of amount equal to advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) could not have been construed as the requirement to make the payment of the amount demanded as per the notice of demand issued u/s. 156 which itself had been disputed by the appellant vide the appeal which was filed by him.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of the short- term capital gains of Rs. 54,99,950 as made by the Assessing Officer is required to be deleted since the impugned property was fully belonging to the brother of the appellant and he had declared the entire capital gain arising on its sale in his return of income.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of the amount of Rs. 44,00,500 as unexplained investment of the appellant under Section 69 is required to be deleted since the impugned investment in the property was fully made by the brother of the appellant out of his own sources.”
The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income claiming that no income chargeable to tax is earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has entered into transaction of purchase to the tune of Rs. 88,01,000/- and sale to the tune of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- towards a property based on the information received from Sub-registrar with regard to the said transaction. Since the assessee did not file the return of income the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 08.03.2023. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice on 20.01.2024 and submitted that he has Assifuddin Mehboob Khan not sold or purchased any property. The assessee further submitted that the impugned transactions are actually entered into by his brother Mr. Nazimuddin Mehboob Khan and that assessee is included in the said transactions only for name sake. It is also submitted that the assessee did not have a bank account until 03.04.2019. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and concluded the assessment determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 99,00,450/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that “3.1 I have examined facts of the case as also gone through relevant provisions of Income Tax the Act. In the present case, the appellant failed to file ITR The impugned order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, creating demand of Rs. 43,44,947/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessing income at Rs. 99,00,450/-and appellant was asked by notice issued u/s 156 of the Act to deposit an amount of Rs. 43,44,947/-, but it is noticed that the appellant has not deposited the demand before filing of this appeal. The appellant, at sl. no. 16 of Form-35, has stated to have made payment of appeal fee of Rs. 1,000/- only. At sl. No. 9 of Form-35, the appellant has offered 'No' comments. This sl. No. 9 is reproduced below-
9 Where no return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment No year, whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid Against sl. No. 9.1 of Form-35, payment of only an amount of Rs. 1,000/- is mentioned which is appeal fee only.
3.2. As per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, where no return has been filed by the assessee, the asseessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him otherwise appeal shall not be admitted. The provisions of section 249 (4) of the Act are reproduced as under- Section 249(4)
"No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filling of the appeal Assifuddin Mehboob Khan (a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or "(b) where no retum has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that, 2 in a case falling under clause (b) and) on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of 5 that clause].] 3.3 As per provisions of section 234B(1), read with provisions of section 208 of the Act, the liability to pay advance tax, in a case where returned income is less than the assessed income, is calculated on the basis of assessed income. The provisions of section 2348(1) and provisions of section 208 of the Act are reproduced below - Section 234B(1)
"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 1434 and where a regular assessment is made, to the date of such regular assessment, on an amount]] equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax. 5 Explanation 1-In this section," assessed tax" means,- (a) for the purposes of computing the interest payable under section 140A, the tax on the total income as declared in the return referred to in that section; (b) in any other case, the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment, as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income.] Explanation 2.- Where in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of Assifuddin Mehboob Khan this section. Explanation 3.- In Explanation 1 and in sub- section (3)." tax on the total income determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143.]”
3.4. Section 208 "208. Conditions of liability to pay advance tax Advance tax shall be payable during a financial year in every case where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, is one thousand five hundred rupees or more.
3.5. In Form-35, the appellant has offered 'No' comments at sl. No. 9 of Form-35 whereas it was supposed to make payment of tax equal to the amount of advance tax payable on its income which in the present case is the income assessed by the AO as no ITR was filed by it. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income The appellant has also not requested for exemption from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act.
4 Since the appellant has not filed ITR as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.
5. The appeal is dismissed.”
3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the return filed by the assessee on 20.01.2024 has not been considered by the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal is not in accordance with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ld. DR on other hand submitted that the AO has specifically recorded a finding that the assessee has not filed the return in response to notice u/s. 148 and therefore the return now brought to the attention of the Bench cannot be considered. From the perusal of the return filed by the assessee on 20.01,2024, we notice that the assessee has filed the said return declaring NIL income. We further notice that the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on the ground that there Assifuddin Mehboob Khan is violation u/s.249(4), has not considered the above return where no tax is due since there is no income. During the course of hearing the ld AR pleaded that the appeal may be remitted back to the CIT(A) to be considered on merits in the light of the status of the return filed by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the facts in the present case the interest of natural justice and fair play, we are remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a denovo consideration on merits by calling for relevant details to consider the appeal on merits. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant details as may be called for by the CIT(A) and co-operate with the appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.