Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order of the NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous. The dismissal was based on the finding that the assessee had not paid the amount equal to advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had not filed his return of income was incorrect, as the assessee had filed the return in response to the notice u/s 148. Consequently, section 249(4)(b) was wrongly applied.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax when the assessee had filed the return of income and paid taxes due.
Sections Cited
249(4), 148, 147, 249(4)(b), 249(4)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 24/10/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19 and raised the following grounds of appeal: “The Appellant objects to the Assessment Order on the following grounds in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant as it is opposed to law and circumstances of the case:-
1. The CIT (A) was not correct in not admitting the Appeal and is not justified in dismissing the appeal by relying on the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has failed to made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which is an incorrect interpretation of section 249(4) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case 3. The Learned CIT (A) was not correct in not appreciating the facts that the Appellant has filed his Return of Income in response to the notice u/s.148 and paid the applicable taxes on the Return of Income declared there at.
4. The Learned CIT (A) was not correct in not appreciating the facts that the Appellant was not required to pay advance tax as his total taxable income was less than the threshold limit of Rs.3,00,000/-.
5. The Learned CIT (A) was not correct in not going through the Appeal Papers filed as the Appellant has clearly mentioned that he has declared total income of Rs. 2,81,100/- and paid the applicable taxes of Rs. 30,292/- 6. The Learned CIT (A) was not correct in not giving sufficient opportunity to the Appellant as the CIT (A) has given only one (1) hearing date and even in the said notice it's appeared that the Appeal is admitted and called for the Written Submission.
7. The Appellant relies on the Grounds raised
before CIT (A) in respect of merits of the Case and the same may be admitted.
8. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal Wherefore on the above grounds and on such other grounds the Appellant prays the Appellate Authority to set aside the Assessment order and may pass such other as the Appellate Authority deems fit.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income in spite of the facts that he had purchased a motor vehicle and purchases an immovable property. Therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued and in response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income. Thereafter various notices were issued and the assessment has been completed u/s. 147 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as infructuous since the assessee had not paid the amount equal to the advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had not filed his return of income is not correct since the assessee had filed his return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 and also remitted the tax dues as per the income computed. In such circumstances, the Ld.CIT(A) could not have dismissed the appeal as if the assessee had not filed his return of income and therefore section 249(4)(b) would apply. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed his return of income and therefore the correct provision to be applied is 249(4)(a) of the Act and not 249(4)(b) of the Act.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
We have perused the assessment order in which the AO had clearly mentioned that the assessee had filed his return of income in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax amount as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act is not correct. The provision 249(4)(b) would attract only in cases where the assessee had not filed their return of income and not in other cases. In view of the above said facts, we find that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to his file to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2025.