SUNEETHA MARTHALA,KAVALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1195/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 March 2025AY 2014-15Bench: the learned CIT(A) that already she informed the authorities, by way of letter dated 22/12/2022 that she had no taxable income at all and she being an agriculturist, is unable to pay the requisite advance tax and in as much as she is ready to prove her claim that she has no taxable income, it would cause hardship to her, if the payment of advance tax is put as a condition for entertaining the appeal. In the impugned order, though the learned CIT(A) referred to the provisions under Section 23 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by failing to consider the proviso to Section 249(4)(b) and deemed it a fit case to exempt the assessee from advance tax payment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, with directions to provide an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order from the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15, which declined to entertain her appeal. The CIT(A) applied Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, citing non-payment of advance tax, but overlooked the proviso. The assessee, an agriculturist, claimed no taxable income and pleaded hardship regarding the advance tax payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in declining to entertain the assessee's appeal for non-payment of advance tax, without considering the hardship provisions under the proviso to Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

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, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Hearing: 13/03/2025

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 19/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: Aggrieved by the order dated 20/09/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [learned CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in the case of Suneetha Marthala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2014-15, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, the learned AR brought to our notice that the learned CIT(A) while invoking the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), missed the proviso thereunder and thereby declined to entertain the appeal. Learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant failed to file the return of income and therefore, there is no entitlement to exemption and the assessee has to pay the amount equivalent to the advance tax.

3.

Learned DR contended that in as much as the assessee was non cooperative with the proceedings all through, the authorities have no option, but to proceed ex-parte and the learned CIT(A) is correct from declining to exempt the assessee from paying advance tax under section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

4.

We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. By way of letter dated 18/09/2024, the assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that already she informed the authorities, by way of letter dated 22/12/2022 that she had no taxable income at all and she being an agriculturist, is unable to pay the requisite advance tax and in as much as she is ready to prove her claim that she has no taxable income, it would cause hardship to her, if the payment of advance tax is put as a condition for entertaining the appeal. In the impugned order, though the learned CIT(A) referred to the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the proviso missed the attention of the learned CIT(A), resulting in declining to entertain the appeal of dispensing with the requirement of payment of advance tax.

5. Having considered the matter as a whole taking holistic view, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case to exempt the assessee from payment of advance tax under the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act and with this view of the matter, we accept the contention of the assessee, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to reexamine the same and take a plausible view according to law after affording opportunity of being heard. Grounds are answered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of March, 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 →