APEX HOSPITAL AND TRAUMA CENTER,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), MEERUT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the
NFAC, Delhi dated 25.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and the facts of the case by holding that the appeal filed by the appellant before him was not admitable due to non-payment of advance tax in terms of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, ignoring the fact that no amount of advance was payable by the appellant as neither there was any admitted income nor any order u/s 210 of the Act, was passed upon the appellant determining the liability to pay advance tax.
That the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal of the appellant on merits.
That the appellant respectfully craves leave to add alter omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal to enable your good self to decide the appeal in accordance with law.”
The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the
case records carefully perused.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a
partnership firm incorporated on 08.02.2016, to operate and maintain
a multi-facility hospital and to provide other medical services. The
assessee did not file any ITR for the AY 2017-18.
The Assessing Officer received an information that during the
year under consideration that the assessee has deposited a sum of
Rs.12,55,000/-, in cash in its bank account, and has invested a sum of
Rs 2,40,00,000/- in purchase of immovable property during the year.
Hence, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 to the assessee on
23.03.2021.
During the course of the reassessment proceedings the assessee
submitted that the cash was deposited out of the current year business
receipts and immovable property was purchased after taking a term
loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- from Union Bank of India and remaining
amount was paid out of capital introduction of Rs.95,60,000/- by the
partners of the assessee firm. The reassessment proceedings were
completed vide reassessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147
r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the Assessing Officer/ NFAC, wherein addition
of Rs.2,55,05,000/- was made holding that the cash deposits of
Rs.15,05,000/- in the bank account of the assessee and the investment
of Rs.2,40,00,000/-in purchase of immovable property were
unexplained.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/
NFAC, who, vide order dated 25.01.2024 refused to admit the appeal
on the ground that advance tax payable by it in terms of provisions of
section 249(4)(b) of the Act was not paid by the assessee.
Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before us.
It is the say of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee firm
did not earn any income during the year under consideration hence its
partner's were under the impression that the ITR of the partnership
firm was not required to be filed. Hence, no ITR of the assessee firm
was filed for the relevant year. The ld. counsel for the assessee
produced the accounts of the assessee to show that there was nil
income for the year. It is further submitted that neither any notice u/s
210 was issued to the assessee determining its liability to pay advance
tax nor the AO levied any interest u/s 234C for non payment of
advance tax. The ld AR reiterated that there was no advance tax
payable by the assessee and prayed for restoration of the issue to
CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the
relevant material on record. From the profit & loss a/c of the assessee
it can be seen that no taxable income has been declared by the
assessee during the relevant year.In terms of provisions of section 209
of the Act, the assessee firm was not required to deposit any advance
tax as no income was earned during the year and also that no order u/s
210 of the Act, was passed upon it determining any liability to deposit
advance income tax.
The fact that no advance tax was payable by the assessee firm is
also supported from the income tax computation sheet as provided
along with the assessment order wherein no interest u/s 234C has been
charged by the Assessing Officer.
On the above noted facts and under the circumstances, we are of
the considered view that the ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and facts of
the case by holding that the assessee has not paid the advance tax it
was required to pay, as no advance tax was payable by the assessee
firm for the year under consideration. We, therefore, hold that in the
interest of justice and fair play the issue be restored to the file of the
CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to
rehear the appeal after affording a reasonable and adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to
furnish all necessary details called for by the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.
1262/DEL/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
[VIKAS AWASTHY] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 07thAugust, 2024.
VL/
