SNB INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1529/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 October 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found no merit in the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on a misappreciation of facts. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the appeal, the ITAT set aside the order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on a technicality regarding payment of tax due on returned income. The CIT(A) noted a discrepancy in the assessee's response in Form 35. The ITAT noted that the assessee had in fact stated tax due was paid in full.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without properly examining the facts regarding tax payment. Whether the merits of the assessee's appeal were addressed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4),Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 22/03/2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16, which in turn, arose from the order dated 28/12/2017, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed.

SNB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1529/Mum./2022 Therefore, we proceed to dispose off this appeal ex–parte, qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) and on the basis of material available on record.

3.

The present appeal filed before us is delayed by 6 days. During the course of hearing, learned DR did not raise serious objections against the prayer for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the same on merits.

4.

At the outset, we noticed that the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/03/2022, observed that in column No. 8 of Form No. 35, assessee in response to the question “Where a return has been filed by the Appellant for the assessment year in connection with which the appeal is filed, whether tax due on income returned has been paid in full”, assessee has stated “No”. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) in absence of any response from assessee to various notices, held that appeal by the assessee cannot be admitted due to clear and mandatory provisions of section 249 (4) of the Act. As a result, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

From the perusal of Form No. 35, forming part of the appeal said, we notice that in reply to the question “Where a return has been filed by the Appellant for the assessment year in connection with which the appeal is filed, whether tax due on income returned has been paid in full”, assessee has mentioned “Tax due on the returned income paid in full”. We further find that the Assessing Officer in its order dated 28/12/2017 passed under section 143 (3) of the Act, has, in para 1 of its order, clearly noted the fact that return of Page | 2

SNB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1529/Mum./2022 income was e-filed by the assessee on 29/09/2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,94,31,360. Further, at internal page 4 of its order, the Assessing Officer computed the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 3,82,21,521, by making the addition of Rs. 87,90,161, to the aforesaid returned income of the assessee. Thus, in view of the above, we find no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) dismissing assessee’s appeal on technical aspect, without correctly appreciating/examination of the basic facts available on record. As the learned CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case and no findings have been rendered on grounds raised in appeal before it, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to file of learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. As a result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/10/2022

More judgments on Section 249(4)

All 251 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →