JAYESH MOHAN GUPTA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7 PUNE, DGIT(INVESTIGATION)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3223/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. It was found that advance tax is only required on admitted tax liability, which was NIL in this case. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2014-15, claiming no taxable income after TDS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine on the grounds that no advance tax was paid, citing Section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of an appeal in limine by the CIT(A) on the ground of non-payment of advance tax is justified when the assessee claims no advance tax was payable due to TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b),Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi
For Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 on 19-07-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 10-04-2023.

2.

Submission of Ld.AR: The Ld.AR filed a paper book containing, including case laws. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had not filed return of income as there was no taxable income for the year. Ld.AR further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no advance tax has been paid by the assessee, following section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has earned salary income, interest income and TDS was deducted. There was no liability to pay advance tax.

ITA No. 3223/PUN/2025

Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. Ld.AR relied on the following decisions: i. Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari vs. ITO in ITA No. 642/PUN/2024; ii. Sagar Jaywant Elawande vs. ITO in ITA No. 224/PUN/2025; iii. Chandra Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4697/MUM/2024

3.

Submission of Ld.DR: The Ld.DR had no objection, if the matter is set aside to Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Findings and analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Assessee is an individual. Assessee had not filed return of income for AY. 2014-14. The AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act for AY. 2014-15, dt. 24-06-2021 after recording the reasons, based on information available on Insight Portal of Income Tax Department. Subsequently, following Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022, notice u/s. 148A of the Act was issued and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed. Then, notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 19-07-2022 was issued. Assessee had not complied during the assessment proceedings, except vide letter dt. 24-03-2023, raising the objection to the reopening on the ground that reopening was time barred. The AO assessed income at Rs. 1,71,64,855/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal on technical ground that assessee has not paid advance tax. Assessee has claimed that the assessee was not liable for advance tax payment as necessary TDS was deducted. In these facts and circumstances, on identical facts, ITAT, Pune in the case of Sagar Jaywant Elawande vs. ITO in ITA No. 224/PUN/2025, dt. 28-03-2025, has held that advance tax for the purpose of section 249(4)(b) of the Act was advance tax on the basis of admitted tax liability. In the case of the assessee, admitted tax liability was NIL. Hence, there was no requirement of advance tax. Similar view has been taken in the case of

ITA No. 3223/PUN/2025

Chandra Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4697/MUM/2024, dt. 29-10-2024. In these facts and circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

There was a delay of 87 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit stating that he was under medical treatment and hospitalized many a times for all the period. Assessee was advised to bed rest. We have perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee and observed that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delays. No assessee is going to gain anything by delaying the appeal. Accordingly, we done the delay

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

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 →