CHETAN RAM,BHITU BHIMJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARMER, BARMER

PDF

ITA 74/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee's submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a non-filer, appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) against an ex-parte order passed by the AO under section 144. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax or disputed tax, contravening section 249(4)(a) of the Act. The assessee claimed their total income was below the taxable threshold and eligible for TCS credit.

Held

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-compliance with section 249(4)(a) was not justified. However, the assessee was unable to substantiate claims made before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding additions by the AO.

Key Issues

Whether the dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of non-compliance with section 249(4)(a) was justified, and to decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO.

Sections Cited

250, 144, 69A, 249(4)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari

For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR.)

Hearing: 27/05/2025Pronounced: 27/05/2025

The impugned appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi *in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)+ passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, ‘the Act’)for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 05/12/2023. The impugned order wasoriginated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer (in short, the “Ld. AO”)passed under section144of the Act, date of order 21/11/2019.

/JODH/2024 Chetan Ram Bhitu Bhimji 2. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. It is noticed that the assessment was completed under section 144 with an addition of Rs.20,30,000/- made under section 69A of the Act, addition of net profit rate amount to Rs.16,92,810/- and the addition of commission income amount to Rs.1,00,905/-. It is found that the assessee was non filer and had not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the advance-tax or has not discharged the obligation for payment of disputed tax, thereby contravening the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act. So, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in an exparte order passed without considering the assessee’s submission. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

During the hearing before us, the Ld.AR filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 145, which is kept on record. The Ld.AR invited our attention to APB pages 61-64, where computation of total income related to this impugned assessment year, is placed. From this computation, it is depicted that the assessee has total income of Rs.2,46,910/- during the impugned assessment year and there is no liability for payment of tax. Furthermore, the TCS was collected of Rs.2,13,083/-, which is reflected in the Form 26AS. This fact was also informed by the assessee to the Ld.CIT(A) by a letter dated 25/11/2023, which is annexed at APB pages 43 to 44.