What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the incorrect payment of appeal fees. The assessee was given liberty to refile the appeal after complying with the fee payment.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chennai. The appeal fees were paid under the wrong head, 'Tax on Regular Assessment' instead of 'Other'.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when appeal fees are paid under an incorrect head. The proper procedure for payment of appeal fees.

Sanketh Kethi Reddy vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 29.03.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai dated 21.10.2016 in 13//CIT(A)-4 for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.

At the outset, on perusing the appeal, I find that the assessee had paid the appeal fees under the Minor head “Tax on Regular Assessment [400]” and not under the head “other”. It is therefore evident that the assessee had not paid the appeal fees as stipulated under the Act. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. I therefore dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. However, the assessee is at liberty to comply with the payment of appeal fees and file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal for reinstating the appeal.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29th March, 2017.

SANKETH KETHI REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments