SUMAN CHAUDHRY (W/O) LATE VIJAY SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NOIDA

In this appeal, the first and foremost grievance of the assessee is against the action of the CIT(A) in ex-parte deciding not to admit the appeal on alleged non-compliance of requirements of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

It is the say of the learned representative of the assessee that the requisite opportunity was not available before the CIT(A) to the assessee to explain that there was no violation of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act inasmuch as there was no advance tax payable for the year under consideration because the income of the assessee was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax.

I have carefully perused the decision of the CIT(A) and find that Section 249(4)(b) of the Act has been invoked to treat the appeal unadmitted on mere conjectures without establishing that the requisite conditions have been fulfilled or not in this case. Ostensibly, in the absence of the assessee, the correct and complete factual position may not have been available with the CIT(A). In these circumstances, and in the fitness of things, I deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the appeal de- novo. Of course, at the outset, the assessee shall satisfy the CIT(A) with regard to the admission of the appeal in terms of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. If the appeal is found by the CIT(A) to be admissible as per law, he shall thereafter decide the appeal raised before him as per law. Since we are remitting the matter to the file of the CIT(A) on the preliminary point of admissibility of appeal, the merit of the dispute is not being adjudicated.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.