KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL ASHRAF,KANNUR vs. ITO,WARD-3, KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1105/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal in limine, especially since the income was determined through an assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination and decision, with directions to provide a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income believing it not chargeable to tax. Subsequently, based on information about cash deposits, the case was reopened under Section 148A and assessed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-deposit of advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal in limine under Section 249(4)(b) when the assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b),Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Pronounced: 20.05.2025

Asst.Year 2019-2020 Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf The Income Tax Officer White Rose, Parammal Road v. Ward 3 Narikode Kottila PO Kannur. Kannur – 670 334. PAN : ACOPA7026L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 19.05.2025. O R D E R

Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :

1.

The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 24.10.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069915030(1) and relates to the assessment year 2019- 2020.

2.

At the outset, we observed that in this case the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that the assessee failed to deposit the advance tax payable by him before filing of the return of income in terms of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

. Kadavath Peedikayil Ashraf. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Today, when the matter was called on for hearing, no one appeared from the side of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the learned CIT- DR.

4.

The learned DR tried to justify the action of the ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the Ld DR and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the assessment order would show that it is a case where no return of income was filed by the assessee as the assessee was under bonafide belief that his income was not chargeable to tax. Thereafter on the basis of certain information revealing that the assessee has deposited cash in its bank account, the Revenue has reopened the case of the assessee u/s.148A of the Act. Thereafter the AO finally passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Having regard to the fact that the income chargeable to tax has been determined after the completion of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, we are of the firm view that the ld.CIT(A) is not correct in dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for examining afresh, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.

Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 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 →