SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 435/BANG/2011Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 November 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine as the tax on returned income was paid during the pendency of the appeal. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(Appeals) for non-payment of tax on returned income at the time of filing. However, the assessee paid the taxes during the pendency of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering that the tax on returned income was paid during the pendency of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
For Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Hearing: 01.11.2016Pronounced: 04.11.2016

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds.

“1. That the above orders of the authorities below in so far as it is against the assessee is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law.

2. The Learned CIT-A erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by holding that appeal is not maintainable u/s. 249(4) of the Act.

3. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed.

4. The search purportedly U/s 132 and all proceedings connected therewith and subsequent to, is against the law and requires to be vacated as such. 5. a) The assessment is bad in law as there is no undisclosed income, hence the assessment requires to be quashed. b) The notices and all subsequent proceedings are not as per law and bad in law, requires to be quashed.

6.

The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest. Further prays that the interest should be levied only on returned income.

7.

Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest V/s 234A, 234B and 234C.

10.

For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.”

2.

During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that tax on returned income was not paid at the time of filing of appeal, whereas the assessee has paid the taxes on the retuned income on 31.3.2010 during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without dealing the issues on merit. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that in the interest of justice, the order of CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter be restored to his file for readjudication of the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

Having carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) in the light of rival submissions, we find that CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in the light of the fact that tax on returned income was paid by the assessee during the pendency of the appeal. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of November, 2016.

More judgments on Section 249(4)

All 251 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →