S.LATHA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of ‘2’ days in filing of this appeal. Since assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘2’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) not admitting the appeal of the assessee since the assessee didn’t pay the tax. 4. The brief facts relating to this issue are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s.Aathika Infrastructure engaged in the real estate business and had filed her return of income (RoI) for AY 2012-13 on 27.12.2012 admitting total income at Rs.4,10,64,317/-. Later on, 31.03.2014, the assessee filed revised return showing income of Rs.3,31,13,340/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on 30.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 assessing the income at Rs.4,05,40,660/- as under: The total income is computed as under -- Income as per the original return Rs. 4,09,95,231/- Less: Value increase in the opening 'stock Rs. 19,64,034/- Add: Additions as discussed above Rs. 15,09,758/- Assessed Income Rs. 4,05,40,660/- Smt. S. Latha :: 3 ::

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that assessee didn’t remit the tax on the income returned before filing of the appeal before him. Therefore, as per sec.249(4) of the Act, he refused admission of the appeal by holding as under: 4.0 I have considered the grounds raised in this appeal. All these grounds relate to AO's rejection of appellant's claim to adoption of revised closing stock as worked out and submitted during the assessment proceedings and denial of deduction u/s.80G. Before going into the merits, it is important to mention that the appellant did not mention anything in Form No.35 with regard to whether tax due on the income returned has been paid in full and did not furnish details of date of payment of tax and the amounts paid. At item No.10 of Form No.35, the appellant left the details blank. As mentioned above, the appellant was specifically asked to furnish the details of payment of self assessment tax on the returned income but has failed to furnish those particulars. It is evident from the Writ petition