Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 after a delay of 23 days. The assessee claimed not to have received the original assessment order and thus could not file the appeal on time. The delay was condoned. The brief facts indicate that no return of income was filed by the assessee, but an order u/s 144 was passed with an addition of Rs. 23,44,100/- u/s 50C.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained that she had moved to Kolkata and did not receive postal communications, including the assessment order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, which the assessee argued was not applicable as she had no taxable income. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax was justified, considering the assessee's claim of not receiving the assessment order and having no taxable income.
Sections Cited
50C, 249(4)(b), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Appellant by : Shri Ameya Shenoy Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-34/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. The Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, incorrect and bad in law as the CIT (A) has failed to consider the fact that, the Appellant is A.Y. 2011-12 Madhumita Das only a joint owner of the property as a spouse (Family relation) for convenience purpose and not the real owner.
2. Confirmation of Addition to income of Rs.42,01,000/- u/s 50C by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, bad in law and in total disregard to the provisions of the IT Act as the Appellant had purchased a property during the year in consideration (Not sold). Thus making the addition u/s 50C incorrect and void in its entirety.
The Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, incorrect and bad in law as the CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal reasoning nonpayment of Advance Tax u/s 249(4)(b), which is not applicable in the Appellants case as the Appellant had no taxable income during the year in consideration 4. The Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department is unjustified, incorrect and bad in law as the CIT (A) has failed to note the fact that the tax liability arose in case of the Appellant only due to the erroneous order passed by the learned AO making a huge and an adhoc addition of Rs.42,01,000/- 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal
at the time of final hearing.”
3. The appeal is filed after a delay of 23 days. The assessee has furnished an application for condonation of delay stating that the assessee was not in possession of original order passed by the AO u/s 144C of the Act. The assessee therefore filed an application requesting for copy of the assessment order before jurisdictional AO on 18.02.2024. However, the same has still not been made available to the assessee. After the waiting for considerable time, the appeal was filed without the original assessment order. In view of the reasons explained by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay of 23 days.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the no return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. However, an order u/s 144 was Page 2 of 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Madhumita Das passed by the AO, after making addition u/s 50C of the Act, demand of Rs. 23,44,100/- was raised. It has been explained by the assessee that she had left Mumbai after retirement of his husband in March, 2013 and shifted to her native place in Kolkata. Hence, the postal communications sent to the old address were not received and even the assessment order has not been received by the assessee till date.
5. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)- Mumbai-34 who has dismissed the same on the ground that the assessee was liable to pay advance tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Observing that the assessee had not filed return of income and also not paid the requisite amount of advance tax, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
6. Before us, the Ld. AR has explained that no notices including the assessment order were received by the assessee. It was the case of the assessee that the property was purchased by her husband in which her name was only added as co-owner. There was no liability on the assessee to furnish her return of income or pay the tax. She has never filed any return as she had no taxable income all her life. As such, the dismissal of the appeal by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the above stated facts, we deem it proper to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh
Page 3 of 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Madhumita Das examination and decision on merits. The assessee is also directed to comply with the requirements/notices in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2024.