M/S VISHWAS CONCRETE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(Appeals) to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte for failure to pay self-assessment tax before filing. Subsequently, the assessee paid the admitted tax.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal dismissed for non-payment of admitted tax can be restored if the tax is paid subsequently. The requirement of paying admitted tax before filing an appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal exparte as the assessee has failed to pay the self-assessment tax before filing the appeal and emphasized that as per provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act, the assessee has to pay the admitted tax at the time of filing the appeal on the Returned income. The learned Authorized Representative has restricted his arguments to the extent of providing one more opportunity of Hearing before the first appellate authority as the assessee has paid the admitted tax which is not disputed by the Revenue and has no serious objections.
We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, we found that the CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal exparte as the assessee has failed to pay the taxes, hence the appeal was not admitted. In the course of Hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that subsequently after dismissal of the appeal, the assessee has paid the taxes and demonstrated with the copy of Form No.26AS with regard to payment of tax. Considering the facts, circumstances and payment of taxes, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issues to the file of CIT (Appeals) for adjudication afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal.
More judgments on Section 249(4)(a)
- Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle- 9(1), HyderabadITA 1741/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2009-10
- Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle 9(1), HyderabadITA 1739/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2007-08
- Shaheed Bhagat Singh Education Society… vs ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(3), MumbaiITA 3827/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Jan 2026AY 2023-24
- Murtuza Hasanali Netterwala, Mumbai vs Incom Tax Officer, CPC, BengaluruITA 6341/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2025AY 2024-25
- Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, SolapurITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: Disposed25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026