Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mahesh Chand, filed appeals for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals *in limine* due to the non-payment of requisite advance tax. The assessee contended that the income, compensation received for the acquisition of agricultural land, was exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, rendering advance tax not payable.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the nature of the income as compensation for agricultural land acquisition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals *in limine* for non-payment of advance tax when the assessee claimed the income from compensation for agricultural land acquisition was exempt under Section 10(37).
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 148, Section 249(4)(b), Section 69A, Section 10(37), Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
These two appeals by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, are directed against two separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.02.2024. Since identical issues are involved for adjudication in both the appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. taken following grounds of appeal:
1 That the order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as the same has not been decided on merits which is against the principal of Natural Justice. 2 That the order passed by Ld. A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is bad in law as the notice U/s 148 was never served on the assessee. 3 That the order passed U/s 250 is bad in law as the Honorable CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the basis of provisions of Section 249(4)(b) mentioning that assessee has not paid advance tax which was payable and ignored the assessee's Contention that his Income is not taxable hence no admitted Income Tax Liability. 4 That the Honorable CIT(A) has not considered the facts that assessee has deposited Cash in his personal Bank Account by withdrawing it from his joint Account hence no question of Unexplained Income U/s 69A. That the order of Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law as Cash has been deposited from the amount received as Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition which is exempt U/s 10 (37) of Income Tax Act. 5 That the order of Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law as he has not appreciated the fact that Income Tax return was not mandatory being the Assessee's total Income below the Maximum amount which was not chargeable to tax. 6 That the Ld. A.O. has erred in charging Interest U/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 7 That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. 8 That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter or abandon any or all the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee had not deposited the requisite advance tax before filing of the first acquisition of agricultural land which is otherwise exempt and no advance tax is payable on such amount. He contended that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee.
Learned DR, on the other hand, supported the order of learned CIT(Appeals).
I have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
The Revenue has not disputed the fact that the amount received was in nature of compensation received in lieu of acquisition of agricultural land. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
6. Identical grounds have been taken in for A.Y. 2012-
13. Herein also the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed appeal in limine by observing that assessee had not deposited requisite advance tax before filing of the first appeal. No change in facts and circumstances has been pointed out by learned DR for the assessment year in question. Therefore, following our reasoning for A.Y. 2011-12 mutatis mutandis for A.Y. 2012-13 the order of learned CIT(Appeals) is on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 21.08.2024.