ROSHNI VISHAL PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(4), THANE

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate discussion has not decided the assessee’s appeal on merits since the same stands dismissed in limine u/sec.249(4)(b) of the Act for want of payment of advance tax. The CIT(A)-NFAC’s findings to this effect are in paras 3.1 to 4 at pages 3 to 5 of his order.

Faced with this situation, we invited learned DR’s attention to the fact that neither there is any clear-cut indication about the assessee’s advance tax liability in the impugned assessment year nor the CIT(A)-NFAC has afforded any opportunity to this effect for making good the alleged corresponding default. We deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the assessee’s instant sole substantive issue deserves to be restored back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication as per law in very terms. We further make it clear that once the assessee’s lower appeal is treated as admitted on the advance tax payment issue; it shall be her risk and responsibility to 3 ITA.No.2004/Mum./2024 plead and prove her case with all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings, within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.