KAMALUDEEN,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, HOSUR

[PAN: AJDPK0299D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is justified in confirming the order of AO by dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We note that the assessee is an individual. The AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act seeking the assessee to file return of income on receipt of information that cash deposits in assessee’s account. Under scrutiny, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.22,27,541/- inter alia making addition of Rs.16,40,300 on account of unexplained investments u/s.69A of the Act vide order dated 14.09.2021 passed u/s.147 read with 144B of the Act. The same was challenged before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of the assessee “in-limine” for non-compliance of clause-(b) of Sub-section-4 of Section 249 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, the assessee is before us.

4. The ld.AR S.Sridhar, Advocate submits that the reasoning given by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in dismissing the assessee’s appeal is incorrect and drew our attention to the computation framed by the AO at Page No.45 of the appeal memo. He referred to Column-18 and submits that the AO himself considered advance tax credit of Rs.50,000/- in making computation. The same was brought to the notice of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi through written submissions dated 11.12.2023 and the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not consider the advance tax credit during the disposal of appeal. The ld.DR Shri P.Sajit Kumar did not dispute the same. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on the ground of non-compliance has been made in pursuance of Clause-(b) of Sub-Section-4 of Section 249 of the Act wherein the assessee in Column No.9 of Form-35, by mistake, it was stated, the non-applicability advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ld.AR submits that by inadvertent mistake, the assessee made endorsement as non-applicability but the payment of advance tax credit is supported by the computation framed by the AO. Further, on perusal of the Page No.13 & 15 of the appeal memo wherein the fact of payment of advance tax credit was brought to the notice of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi well before the passing of impugned order but however, not considered by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of ld.AR that the reasons given by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in dismissing the appeal “in-limine” for non- compliance of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act is incorrect. Since no finding was given on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose.