SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3827/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 January 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the available records. It noted that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because of non-payment of self-assessment tax. However, the assessee had provided evidence demonstrating that the self-assessment tax had been paid. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal on this basis. The Tribunal directed the Learned CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on its merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Education Society, filed an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. The assessment year in question is 2023-24. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 82,00,950/-, but the AO CPC assessed the total income at Rs. 11,04,51,620/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on the grounds that self-assessment tax had not been paid as required by Section 249(4)(a) of the Act. The assessee contended that self-assessment tax had indeed been paid on the returned income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in not admitting the assessee's appeal on the ground that self-assessment tax was not paid, as required by Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that self-assessment tax had been duly paid on the returned income, and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on this procedural ground. The assessee submitted evidence to support this claim. Revenue's Contention: The Learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 249(4)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gulati
For Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Dutta- CIT DR
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026
1.

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Mumbai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 06.03.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 05.12.2024.

2.

The assessee is a trust and filed the return of income on 31.12.2023 showing total income at Rs.82,00,950/-. The AO CPC in intimation issued u/s 143(1) has assessed the total income at Rs.11,04,51,620/-.

3.

On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that assessee has not paid the self assessment tax as required u/s 249(4)(a).

4.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has submitted the evidence that self assessment has been duly paid on the return income, therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified to dismiss the appeal.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal on the ground that self assessment tax has not been paid. The assessee has submitted evidence showing that self assessment tax has been paid. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merit.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 23rd day of January, 2026 at Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(a)

All 85 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →