Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of non-admission under Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was against additions made by the Assessing Officer for undisclosed business income and unexplained money.
Held
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had not delved into the merits of the case. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass an order in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of non-admission without considering the merits of the case. Whether the additions made by the AO were correct.
Sections Cited
250, 249(4)(b), 147, 144, 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA
ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under [A] section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 23.01.2024 for A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground under Section 249(4)(b) and ignored on law and facts as the tax is deducted at source and deposited to the credit of central government against PAN of the appellant.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs.39,76,144 based on an incorrect and arbitrary estimation of business income.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals violated the principles of natural justice by confirming the assessment without giving the appellant an adequate opportunity to present their case or considering the reasons for non-compliance. The appellant's failure to respond was due to genuine hardships, which were not adequately considered.
The Learned Commissioner Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming order of Learned Assessing officer by making an addition of Rs. 39,76,144 without properly verifying the records and accounts of the appellant's business. The best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made in haste and without proper investigation, leading to an inflated estimation of income.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in law and facts by confirming addition under Section 69A of Rs.16,00,000.
The appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify, or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal and to submit such further grounds as may be necessary or required at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made couple of additions i.e. undisclosed business income at Rs.39,76,144/- and Unexplained money under section 69A of the Act at Rs.16,00,000/-.
2.1 Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the [A] provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by not admitting appeal alleging that the appellant has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him, if no return of income has been filed by him.
2.2 However, before us ld.Counsel for the Assessee submitted that tax at source was deducted and deposited to the credit of the central government and there was no liability to pay any advance tax. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not delved into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) is obliged to pass the order in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and in accordance with Law. The Assessee is directed to provide proper email id to the Department for getting hearing notices through ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.