RAMADEVI NELATURI,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., WARD-1, PRODDUTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1031/HYD/2024Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 November 2024AY 2019-20Bench: Shri INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by invoking Section 249(4) of the IT Act. It was found that the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax prior to the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, failed to file her return of income for AY 2019-20. The Assessing Officer, upon receiving information about cash deposits of Rs. 16,50,000/-, initiated reassessment proceedings and made additions under Section 69C. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine based on Section 249(4) of the IT Act without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 249(4),Section 209

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 06/11/2024

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Ramadevi Nelaturi Vs. Income Tax Officer CUDDAPAH Ward -1 PAN: AVIPN5487D Proddutur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Aravindakshan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/11/2024 आदेश/ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/07/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2019-20.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the A.Y 2019-20. The Assessing Officer on receipt of information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.16,50,000/- with the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Kadapa and formed an opinion that the income had escaped the assessment. Accordingly, issued

Page 1 of 3 a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2019-20. The appellant neither complied with the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer has completed the “Best Judgment Assessment” by bringing to tax a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue that arises for my consideration is, whether the learned CIT (A) NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limini, by placing reliance on the provisions of section 249(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961. From the material available on record, it would be clear that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but for the addition made by the Assessing Officer. There was no material available on record to show that there is a liability to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of Page 2 of 3 the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) ought not to have invoked the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act, I therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the NFAC to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →