NEHA MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

At the outset the ld. council for assesse has submitted that the learned CIT appeal was not justified in not admitting the appeal of the assessee as he has just rejected the appeal of the assesse by referring to the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the act without discussing and calculating the quantum of the stipulated tax liability to be paid by the assessee. The learned counsel argued that where the assessee was not having taxable income, the provisions of income tax do not stipulate that how the advance tax liability has to be worked out. The AR contended that since, appellant has no taxable income during the assessment year under consideration and hence, she has no advance tax liability payable and accordingly, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the act not applicable in the present case of the assessee.

On the merits of the case, the AR submitted that during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the mother of the assesse Alka Meena has received various death cum retirement

Per contra, the Id. AR stands by the impugned order.

We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant has no taxable income during the year under consideration. In our view, when the appellant assessee has no taxable income, the provisions of the Income tax do not Neha Meena v. ITO require the appellant assessee to work out any advance tax liability hypothetically and make payment thereof as alleged by the department.

From the record, it is evident that the Id. CIT(A) has not appreciated the merits of the case and rejected the appeal of the assessee by referring the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without discussing a single word about the quantum of the stipulated tax liability, required to be paid by the appellant assessee is in violation of provisions of law. It is undisputed fact on record that the mother of the assessee has received various deaths- cum retirement benefits in her aforesaid bank account out of which she made FDRs in the name of the appellant (APB pgs. 3 to 20). The bank statement of the appellant assessee is self-explanatory regarding source of the investment in FDRs made in the Punjab National Bank by way of transfer entry (APB pg. 1 & 2). Thus, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) is taken in arbitrary manner and mechanical manner ignoring the facts on record is not justified. In our view, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) suffer with infirmity and perversity to the facts on record which deserves to be quashed.

In the above view, we accept the grievance of the appellant assessee as genuine and as such the addition of Rs.21,11,000/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is deleted.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.