RAJABATHER SAMPATH CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-8(1), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, (hereinafter ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter ‘AY’) 2018-19.

2.1 Sl.No.8 & 9 reads as under:

Details of Taxes paid: 8. Where a return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment year in connection with which the No appeal is filed, whether tax due on income returned has been paid in full 8.1. If reply to 8 is Yes, then enter details of return - and taxes paid (a) Acknowledgement number - (b) Date of filing - (c) Total tax paid - 9. Where no return has been filed by the appellant for Not Applicable the assessment year, whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 9.1. If reply to 9 is Yes, then enter details. -

(AY 2018-19) Rajabather Sampath :: 3 ::

2.3 And it was brought to our notice that assessee had remitted tax to the tune of Rs.22,525/- as on 02.05.2022, on the return filed by him i.e, well before filing appeal before Ld CIT(A), and therefore, the assessee ought to have answered ‘Yes’ to Question No.8, and not entered ‘No’ to it; and therefore the answer to Sl.No.9, assessee inadvertently typed “not applicable” whereas the answer was “yes” (return filed pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act), which was accepted by the AO; and according to the Ld.AR, the mistake happened because, the assessee didn’t file the original return u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, the assessee inadvertently had replied to question at Sl.No.9 as “not applicable” whereas, assesse duly filed return pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act, which was accepted by the AO. Therefore, according to Ld AR, the Ld CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal as not-maintainable, without atleast asking explanation from assessee and then, assessee could have explained the same and cleared the confusion.

(AY 2018-19) Rajabather Sampath :: 4 :: to the assessee. In his rejoinder, the assessee submitted that it did not receive any such notices from the Ld.CIT(A).

Pursuant to which assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2022 and paid tax of Rs.22,575/- on 02.05.2022. The AO taking note of the return of income filed by assesse, proceeded to assess total income of the assessee at Rs.1,13,55,000/- in place of returned income of Rs.4,90,000/- by order dated 25.03.2023. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) did not entertain the appeal and held it to be infructuous/not maintainable mainly because, assessee had mistakenly shown in Form No.35 [filed before him] that assessee neither filed the return nor remitted the tax.

However, before us, the assessee has demonstrated that it has filed return of income pursuant to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, as well as remitted tax on the returned income. However, while filing the appeal in Form No.35, the assessee has made an inadvertent mistake as noted (supra), since, the mistake is bona fide, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) for assailing the additions made by the AO. Therefore, we set aside the (AY 2018-19) Rajabather Sampath :: 5 :: impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file proof of remittance of tax on the return of income filed by assessee by furnishing details as sought at S.No.8.1 (a) to (c) of Form 35; and when the appeal is heard by Ld.CIT(A), assessee to be diligent and file relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue raised by assessee as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.

Order pronounced on the 29th day of May, 2024, in Chennai.