M/S MOOKAMBIKA ASSOCIATES,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/BANG/2013Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 March 2016AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Hon'ble High Court remitted the matter back to the ITAT after the assessee subsequently paid the admitted tax. The ITAT, in turn, set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

Following a search, the assessee filed a return admitting a certain income and tax liability. The assessment was completed at a higher income and tax. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-payment of self-assessment tax, a decision upheld by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits when the self-assessment tax was paid belatedly after the initial dismissal for non-payment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, C.A
For Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.21.12.2012 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08.

2.

There was a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in case of Mr. S. Chandrashekar group of companies on 6.1.2010. The assessee filed its return of income under Section 153A rws 153C of the Act declaring an income of Rs.1.56 Crores and admitted the tax liability of Rs.96,46,814. The assessment was completed for the Assessment Year 2007-08 at a total income of Rs.2.06 Crores and a tax liability of Rs.1,76,75,366. The assessee challenged the assessment before the CIT (Appeals) however, the CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not paid the self- assessment tax. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide its order dt.5.11.2015 because of the reason that the assessee did not pay the self-assessment tax. The assessee carried the matter before the Hon'ble High Court by filing an appeal in and submitted that the assessee has subsequently paid the admitted tax amount along with interest vide challan dt.20.1.2015. Upon which the Hon'ble High Court has remitted the matter back to the tribunal in para 6 as under :-

1.

“6. In view of the aforesaid, as the admitted tax is now said to have been deposited, we remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the appeal of the appellant afresh, after taking into account the amount of tax deposited on 20.01.2015, and giving a finding as to whether the amount of tax so deposited by the appellant is the total amount that was required to be deposited. The appeal shall then be heard on merits and in case if it is found to be the adequate amount of tax has been deposited by the assessee, then necessary directions shall be given by the Tribunal to the Appellate Commissioner to restore the appeal which had been filed before it, and the Appellate Commissioner shall then decide the same on merits, and in accordance with law.”

Thus it is clear that now the assessee has paid the admitted self- assessment tax. Since the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) due to non-payment of self-assessment tax without going into the merits of the case, therefore, there is no finding by the CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the case. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this appeal to the record of the CIT (Appeals) for adjudication of the same on merits.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24th day of March, 2016.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →