AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3911/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT ruled that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee had a refund claim from excess TDS, implying no advance tax was due. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal and consequently set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Aishani Consultants Pvt. Ltd, did not file an Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2012-13. Following reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, the assessee filed a return claiming a refund due to excess TDS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, invoking Section 249(4)(b) on the grounds of non-filing of the return and non-payment of advance tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) when the assessee had a refund claim arising from excess TDS, indicating no advance tax was payable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 249(4)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Smt Rano Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.07.2024Pronounced: 05.07.2024

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhidated31.10.2023 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13. 2. The summary of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A)

grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] despite the fact that the provisions of this section are not applicable in the case of the assessee.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case

records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer obse

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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →