RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 22 day. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application and the shortness of the delay, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same is taken up for hearing.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for non deposit of advance tax.

We note that in this case, the impugned addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. However, the assessee has disputed the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer which was subject matter of adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has claimed that his income was less than the prescribed threshold limit to invite taxation, therefore, the assessee was not supposed to deposit any advance tax. Under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was supposed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

In view of the aforesaid submissions of the assessee, the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) is limine, cannot be held to be justified. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside, and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.