BHALAGAM NAIDU RAJA,VELLORE vs. ITI WARD 3, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 872/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as unadmitted, as the assessee had paid self-assessment tax, which does not bar an appeal. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2017-18, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144, which included unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-payment of taxes, despite the assessee having paid self-assessment tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of taxes, violating principles of natural justice by not considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 249(4)(b),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 24.06.2024

O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060261821 (1) dated 30.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Vellore for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 14.11.2019.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has raised the ground that the CIT(A)-NFAC has violated the principles of natural justice in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passing ex-parte order without going into the merits of the case. The relevant grounds raised

by the assessee i.e., ground Nos. 2 to 4 as under:-

2. The NFAC erred in not considering the grounds set forth before the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax and passed an order u/s.250 which violates the principles of natural justice.

3. The NFAC failed to apply its mind while looking into the Assessment Order that is passed based on the Best Judgment Assessment.

4. The order passed u/s.250 is based on no logic and technicalities and is invalid in the eyes of the law.”

3.

The brief facts are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 and accordingly, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued dated 10.03.2018 and assessment was completed u/s.144 of the Act by adding unexplained cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act and taxing the same u/s.115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs.10,75,400/-. The CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that the assessee has not paid the taxes in term of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. But at the time of hearing, it is noted that the assessee as per the processing of return u/s.143(1) of the Act has paid self-assessment tax at Rs.28,321/-.

- 3 - This processing u/s.143(1) of the Act is dated 14.11.2019. Once the assessee has paid the taxes on returned income, the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act do not bar an assessee from filing of appeal. We noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC has totally erred in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same as unadmitted and infructuous. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 24th June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →