JINTO CHETTIYAKUNNEL THOMAS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2420/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 April 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – (President), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that their prior order concerning the stay petition and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) addressed the issues. As no further order was required based on that previous decision, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging the NFAC's order for AY 2016-17. The assessee also filed a stay application because the CIT(A) had not admitted the appeal due to non-payment of admitted tax. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the stay petition and restored the appeal to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be admitted and decided on merits, and whether a stay on collection of dues is warranted given the procedural stage of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Kirath Singh, Advocate, Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

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. 2016-17 and raised the following grounds: “1. The order of the lower authorities is contrary to facts, devoid of merits, against the law, and in total disregard of natural justice and the well-laid-down principles.

Page 2 of 3 S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 & 2. The assessment order was passed in total disregard of the pieces of evidence adduced before the assessing authority.

3.

The CIT(A), NFAC has misinterpreted the provisions of S. 249(4)(b) and the order is in total disregard of the law as laid down by the courts. Hence, the order of the first appellate authority may be set aside and the matter decided on merits.

4. The appellant and his wife have sufficient sources for the purchase of the property as given in the statement of facts submitted along with these grounds.

5. The appellants crave leave to alter, add to and/or amend the aforesaid grounds.

6.

For these and any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant pleads that the Order of the AA in appeal may be set aside with a direction to him to complete the assessment by deleting the addition and accepting the return and books of account as it is.”

2.

The assessee also filed a stay application in S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 seeking the stay of collection of the outstanding dues and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not admitted the appeal as no admitted tax has been paid. Since the appeal has not been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A), we deem it fit to decide the main appeal out of turn and dismissed the stay application and proceed to take up the main appeal for hearing with the consent of both the parties.

3. At the time of deciding the stay petition on 27/12/2024, this Tribunal had given the following order in respect of the Appeal in the order sheet. “At the time of hearing of the Stay Petition it was found that stay is applied for the reason that CIT (A) has not admitted the appeal of assessee, as no admitted tax has been has been deposited. As per the assessee, only income is salary of Rs.3,33,000/- and therefore there is no admitted tax and advance tax is not payable. After hearing both the parties, Stay Petition was dismissed and assessee's appeal is restored back to CIT(A), where assessee is directed to show what is admitted tax, pay the Page 3 of 3 S.A. No. 78/Bang/2024 & Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal, if admitted tax is paid. In view of the above appeal is also allowed for statistical purpose. Hence appeal is also disposed off.”

4.

In view of the above said order passed by this Tribunal on 27/12/2024, we are of the view that no further order is required.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Stay Application is also dismissed in view of the order passed on 27/12/2024.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04th April, 2025.

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 →