Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous for not paying advance tax and not filing the return of income. However, the assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 3,51,376 as self-assessment tax, which was equal to the advance tax payable.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed paid the tax amount as mentioned in Form No. 35. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax without considering the self-assessment tax paid and whether the additions made under Sections 68 and 69A were justified.
Sections Cited
249(4)(b), 68, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 28/02/2024 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not filed the return of income and, further, the appellant has also not paid the amount equal to advance tax as required under Section 249(4)(b).
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had paid the tax amounting to ₹ 3,51,376 on the basis of self-assessment of tax liability during the course of the assessment proceeding and it was more than the amount equal to the advance tax payable by the appellant.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) Ought to have deleted the addition of ₹ 7,15,819 made under Section 68. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) Ought to have deleted the addition of ₹ 13,41,000 made under Section 69A. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjitsingh Premsingh Rawal 2
The peculiar facts of the case are that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous by observing that the assessee has not paid amount equal to the advance tax, while filing the appeal in Form No. 35 before him.
We have carefully perused Form No.
We find that at Clause 9.1., the assessee has specifically mentioned the details of tax payments with BSR Code – 0000562, paid on 26/09/2019 and the amount has been mentioned at Rs.3,51,376/-, which is the amount equal to the amount of advance tax. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case and accordingly appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merits after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th July, 2024 at Mumbai. (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 09/07/2024 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjitsingh Premsingh Rawal 3
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील
( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,