SADHNA AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), GHAZIABAD

ITA 960/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A), noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal *in limine* without considering the assessee's contention of having no taxable income and thus no liability for advance tax. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 34,20,000/- during AY 2012-13, allegedly paid in cash from the sale consideration of other properties. Based on AIR information, the AO reopened the assessment and added the property value as "income from other sources", which was upheld by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for non-payment of advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the maintainability of the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) due to non-payment of advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, and whether the CIT(A) correctly exercised discretion regarding the pre-condition for appeal admission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)(b),Section 133(6),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Adv.; &, Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.08.2024Pronounced: 13.08.2024

PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of learned

CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.01.2024,

pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order of the Id. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2.

That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. The Id. CIT (A) has not considered that no 2 amount was payable under s. 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the entire tax liability is in dispute and not admitted by the appellant.

3.

That without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT (A) has erred

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 249(4)(b)

All 347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →