SRI ANNAIAH ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), MYSORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant before him is not maintainable since it filed belatedly by 10 days and that the appellant had not obtained and quoted a PAN in Form No. 35 and had also not paid the amount equivalent to the Advance-tax and hence the appeal was not maintainable u/s 249[4] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant had filed a letter dated "NIL" explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and having regard to the explanation tendered the learned CIT[A] ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same on this ground. 2.2 The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that mentioning of PAN in Form No. 35 was not a mandatory requirement for filing the first appeal and hence the appeal ought to have been admitted and adjudicated on merits instead of being rejected on this ground. 2.3 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of Sec.249[4] of the Act since the entire income assessed was disputed and hence he ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of rejecting the same on this ground.

3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in disposing off the appeal without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case and hence, the impugned order passed requires to be set aside.

“1. The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the re-assessment requires to be cancelled.

2. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered.”

4. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He also submitted that there was delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) because the assessee was not having PAN at the relevant point of time and for this reason, there was delay in filing the appeal and ultimately, the appeal was filed without PAN because the assessee could not obtain PAN till that time although the same has been obtained later on. Regarding violation of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of IT Act, he submitted that this is the case of the assessee that the sale of property is a agricultural property and therefore, the income is not taxable and hence the assessee was not required to obtain PAN or pay advance tax and hence, there is no violation of section 249(4)(b). The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

5. I have considered the rival submissions. First of all, I reproduce para 3 from the order of CIT (A) which is as under. “3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 10 days and no reasonable cause which could have prevented the appellant from preferring the appeal within the statutory time limit was stated by the appellant. The admitted facts pertaining to the appellant that are stated both in the impugned order of assessment and in the statement of facts show that the appellant failed to furnish a valid Permanent Account Number as per the statutory requirements of the provisions of Section 139A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 114 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, the appellant admittedly failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of obtaining and furnishing the Permanent Account Number. The appellant ought to have obtained a Permanent Account Number as per law and stated that Permanent Account Number in Form 35 prescribed under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as per the statutory requirements contained in the provisions of Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, the appellant failed to pay an amount equivalent to the amount of Advance Tax which was payable by him as required vide clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the appellant admittedly failed to comply with the aforesaid statutory requirements, the appealis found inadmissible, as per law.”

6. As per this Para, it comes out that this was the explanation of the assessee before CIT(A) regarding delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) that assessee was not having PAN. As per the statement of facts filed before CIT(A) and available on record, it is seen that it is the case of the assessee that assessee has derived income from sale of agricultural products over a period of years and therefore, the assessee was not assessed to tax and for this reason, the assessee has neither obtained PAN nor filed the return of income and there is no payment of advance tax by assessee. As per the impugned assessment

order, it is seen that it is stated by AO in the assessment order that assessee was not assessed to tax for any of the earlier years and information was received about the assessee that he has entered into Development Agreement with one Shri R. Veeresh S/o. R.S. Rajashekar for the sale of agricultural land held by him for a consideration of Rs. 8 Lakhs. Hence this observation of the AO also supports the assessee that assessee is not having taxable income and therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has violated law by not filing the return of income or not obtaining the PAN. Considering the facts of the present case in entirety, I hold that delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned and I condone the same. Regarding alleged violation of section 249(4)(b) also, I hold that in the facts of the present case, assessee was not required to make any payment of advance tax and therefore, section 249 is not applicable in the present case. I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no decision is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.