Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed in limine for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee contended that their income was below the taxable threshold, thus no advance tax was payable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was disputed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal in limine for non-payment of advance tax was not justified as the assessee's income was below the taxable limit and the addition was a disputed one. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether dismissal of appeal in limine for non-deposit of advance tax is justified when income is below taxable threshold and addition is disputed.
Sections Cited
250, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
order
: 28.01.2025 ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
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.
I.T.A. No.: 451/PAT/2024 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, AY : 2015-16 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the advance tax, if any, was payable on the admitted liability. In the case in hand, the assessee’s income was less than the prescribed monetary limit, the income above which is chargeable to tax. Since there was no tax liability of the assessee hence, there was no question of paying any advance tax. He has submitted that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer was the subject matter of the present appeal. That the same was a disputed liability imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer, hence there was no question of payment 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.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2025.