VELUSAMY SURESHKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(1), COIMBATORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] for respective Assessment Years on various dates as mentioned below:

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 2 :: ITA Nos. AYs CIT’s date of AO’s order u/s. order ITA No. 1293/Chny/2026 2018-19 12.11.2025 147 r.w.s 144 ITA No. 1294/Chny/2026 2018-19 12.11.2025 271B ITA No. 1295/Chny/2026 2018-19 12.11.2025 272A(1)(d) ITA No. 1296/Chny/2026 2018-19 12.11.2025 270A ITA No. 1297/Chny/2026 2023-24 09.01.2026 272A(1)(d) 2. These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders CIT(A) whereby the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of assessing officer passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144, penalty orders passed u/s.s 271B, 272A(1)(d) and 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") were dismissed in limine on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 3. Since a common issue arises in all these appeals being ITA No.1293 to 1296/Chny/ 2026, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 4. The assessee is an individual. For the relevant assessment years, information available with the Department revealed that the assessee had made substantial cash deposits in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India. For one of the years under consideration, cash deposits amounting to Rs.4,32,84,450/- and withdrawals amounting to Rs.2,14,032/- were noticed. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act were initiated. Notices issued u/s. 148 were not complied with by the assessee. Consequently, assessments were completed ex parte u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer estimated income at 8% of the cash deposits and brought the same to tax under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession".

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 3 :: 5. Aggrieved by the respective assessment and penalty orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues raised on merits. The appeals were dismissed in limine by holding that: (i) the assessee had not filed returns of income for the relevant assessment years; and (ii) the assessee had not paid an amount equal to the advance tax payable as contemplated u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act.

Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that the appeals were not maintainable and dismissed them without examining the additions and penalties on merits.

Now assessee in separate appeals before the Tribunal.

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 4 :: The ld. AR submitted that these decisions have interpreted sections 208, 209 and 249(4)(b) harmoniously and have held that where the assessee disputes the very liability to tax, dismissal of appeal solely on account of non-payment of advance tax would not be justified. It was therefore pleaded that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) be set aside and the matters restored for adjudication on merits. 8. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that section 249(4)(b) clearly mandates payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable where no return of income has been filed. According to the Revenue, the assessee neither filed returns of income nor paid advance tax as contemplated by section 249(4)(b). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the appeals as non-maintainable. The ld. DR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, substantial cash deposits exceeding Rs.4.32 crores were found in the bank account and the assessee failed to furnish any material before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) to establish that the deposits were not taxable. Accordingly, it was argued that the dismissal of the appeals by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and carefully considered the materials available on record. The short issue arising for consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 249(4)(b) provides that where no return of income has been filed by the assessee, no appeal shall be admitted unless the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable by him. A plain reading of the provision indicates that the

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 5 :: requirement is payment of advance tax which was payable by the assessee. Therefore, the expression "advance tax payable" assumes significance and cannot be interpreted in isolation from the charging and computation provisions contained in sections 207, 208 and 209 of the Act. 10. In the present case, the assessee disputes the very basis of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not admitted any taxable income corresponding to the additions made in the assessment orders. The entire assessed income is under challenge before the appellate authority. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that where the assessee disputes the entirety of the additions and does not admit any taxable income, the requirement of payment of advance tax contemplated u/s. 249(4)(b) cannot be mechanically applied merely because an assessment has resulted in taxable income. Similar issue has been considered by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Perumalpillai Sreenivasan v. ITO (ITA No.3186/Chny/2024 dated 18.03.2025), Kandasamy Govindaraj v. ITO (ITA Nos.364 & 365/Chny/2025 dated 15.05.2025) and Gopinath Sivaraman v. ITO (ITA Nos.4014 to 4019/Chny/2025 dated 09.03.2026), wherein it was held that when the assessee disputes the liability itself and does not admit any taxable income, dismissal of appeal u/s. 249(4)(b) is not warranted. 11. We have also perused the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A). The appeals have been dismissed solely on the ground that no return of income was filed and advance tax was not paid. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not examined whether any income was admitted by the assessee, nor has he considered the legal position emerging from the judicial precedents cited before him. In our considered

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 6 :: opinion, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) have been incorrectly invoked in the facts of the present case. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeals in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Since the ld. CIT(A) has not examined the issues arising from the assessment orders and penalty orders on merits, we are of the view that the matter requires restoration to his file for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A). We hold that the appeals filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority were maintainable and could not have been rejected by invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act in the facts of the present case. We therefore restore all the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeals and adjudicate the issues raised therein on merits in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or penalties involved in these appeals and all issues are left open for adjudication by the ld. CIT(A). 13. In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos.1293 to 1296/Chny/2026 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 14. ITA No.1297/Chny/2026: For Assessment Year 2023-24, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4,95,550/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on account of high-value cash withdrawals reported in SFT/section 194N. Notices issued u/s. 142(1) were not complied with. Consequently, assessment was completed u/s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act determining total income at

ITA No 1293 to 1297/Chny/2026 (AY 2018-19 & 2023-24) :: 7 :: Rs.1,03,86,340/-. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 272A(1)(d) were initiated for non-compliance with statutory notices. 15. Since assessee has not challenged the assessment order and also no cogent explanation or reasonable cause is given for failure to comply with the notices dated 14.08.2024 and 25.06.2024 hence default clearly comes under the garb of section u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. Hence we upheld the penalty levied by AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 16. In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1297/Chny/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 04th day of June 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग#र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 04th June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF