Loading judgment…
Facts
The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal *in limine* for Assessment Year 2019-2020 on the ground that the assessee failed to deposit advance tax as required by Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee contended that they had no income for the impugned year, and the income was subsequently charged under Section 147 read with Section 144 following a reopening under Section 148A.
Held
The Tribunal found that the learned CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing the appeal *in limine*, especially since the income chargeable to tax was determined after the completion of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh examination in accordance with law, ensuring the assessee is given a meaningful opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal can be dismissed *in limine* by the CIT(A) for non-deposit of advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) when the income leading to the tax demand was determined subsequent to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144.
Sections Cited
249(4)(b), 147, 144, 148A
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
Asst.Year 2019-2020 Aloor Thomas Joy The Income Tax Officer Aloor House, Thaikkad v. Ward (International Nenmini Guruvayoor Taxation) Thrissur – 680 104. Kochi. PAN : AZSPJ7531J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Divya Ravindran, Advocate 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 :
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 06.11.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1070143885(1) and relates to the assessment year 2019- 2020.
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.
. Aloor Thomas Joy. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. The learned Counsel for the assessee pointed that since the assessee was not having any income for the impugned assessment year, he could not file the income-tax return and thereafter the income alleged to have been charged under the Income-tax Act has been computed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax.
The learned DR tried to justify the action of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions 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 bona-fide 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. 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2025.