NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1265/Hyd/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Narsinga Rao Aleti
Nalgonda
[PAN : ANRPA9237H]
Vs. ITO, Ward-1
Suryapet
(Appellant)

(Respondent)

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Mohd Afzal, AR
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Ms.P.Sunitha, DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 01/01/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement:
01/01/2025

आदेश / ORDER
PER. MANJUNATHA G., A.M:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.10.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi, pertaining to A.Y.2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case, an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), was passed on 27.04.2022 by the juri ictional assessing officer and subsequently, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 27.04.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file any 2

return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act has been issued on various dates and called upon the assessee to explain the source for the cash deposited into bank account. In response, the assessee submitted that he, along with his family members has sold an agricultural land, admeasuring 5.2 acres for a consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/- and out of the consideration received from the sale of his share of property, the cash has been deposited into the bank account.
The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant agreement to sale with M/s Siyora Developers Pvt. Ltd. and their confession statement, denied of entering into any unregistered sale agreement, rejected the argument of the assessee and made addition of Rs.34,00,000/- towards cash deposited into the bank account held with Union Bank of India as unexplained money to be taxed u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer are ex- parte. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-payment of advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, by holding that no appeal under section 249(4) shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal, the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. However, the fact remains that the appellant does not have any taxable income to pay advance tax and also filed return of income and claimed rebate u/s 87A of the Act, where, the appellant not required to pay taxes, if income does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Ld.CIT(A), without considering the facts simply dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by wrongly interpreting the column 9 of Form 35 filed by the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case.

Admittedly, the proceedings before the Assessing Officer are ex- parte, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act dated 15.02.2024. Although, the appellant has filed certain details, in response to show cause notice, but failed to file complete evidences in respect of the source for the cash deposited into the bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the best judgement order and made additions towards cash deposits u/s 69 of the Act. Further, although the appellant has filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority, but neither appeared nor explained its case. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’, in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, on the ground that the appellant is a non-filer and has not paid an amount equal to advance tax payable for the relevant assessment year. It was the case of the appellant before us that the appellant has filed the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and claimed rebate u/s 87A of the Act, because the total income of the appellant does not exceed the threshold limit. Since the appellant does not have taxable income, he has not paid advance tax or self-assessment tax for the relevant assessment year. Since there is no tax liability, the appellant has stated in column 9 of Form 35, that, said particulars are not applicable.
We find that the assessee has filed the return of income, in response to notice u/s 148 and claimed rebate u/s 87A of the Act, because, the taxable income of the appellant for the impugned assessment year is less than the threshold limit for payment of any taxes. Sinc the appellant does not have any taxable income, the question of payment of any advance tax as 5

per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act does not arise. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering relevant facts, simply dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’, in terms of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, even though on facts of the present case, the said provisions have no application. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in’limine’.

S.No Addresses
1
Shri Narsinga Rao Aleti, 2-3, Namarugomula, Bibi Nagar,
Jamilapet, Nalgonda
2
The ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet
3
The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad
4
The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches
5
Guard File

By Order