OMKARA POLYPLAST PVT. LTD.,,KOLKAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 2516, 2933 & 2934/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22 I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata Omkara Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCE8924D Appearances: Assessee represented by : Siddharth Agarwal, AR. Department represented by : Madanappa Raghuveer, CIT DR and Sandip Sandeep Kumar Mehata, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 23.06.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.07.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2021-22 dated 02.09.2025 and 17.10.2025. Since the issues in all the three appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 2516/KOL/2025; AY 2018-19:

“4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee had sought adjournment before the Bench but the same was rejected as both before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) no proper representation was made and the assessee had not given any justification for the adjournment sought and the appeal was heard. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that there was no liability on the part of the assessee to pay any advance tax as the income returned was nil/loss. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 5. Before adjudicating the appeal, it is important to refer to the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which is relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal and which is as under: “249(4)(b): where no return 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, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.” 6. As per the proviso thereof, there is an option available to the assessee to file an application before the Ld. CIT(A) who may dispense with the requirement of payment of advance tax on the basis of facts. Apparently, no such application was filed by the assessee and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. 7. However, the liability to pay the advance tax is determined by the provisions of Chapter XVII-C relating to advance payment of tax and is governed by the provisions of section 208 as per which 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 in this regard is ₹ 10,000/- or more. Further, Section 209 of the Act r.w.s. 210 specifies the manner of computation of advance tax; section 209(1) of which is reproduced as under: “209. (1) The amount of advance tax payable by an assessee in the financial year shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), be computed as follows, namely :—

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata