VASU KUMAR VADDI,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the merits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2013-14 despite notices and a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) regarding advance tax payment.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the technical ground of non-payment of advance tax, without considering the merits of the case and the assessee's claim of no taxable income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 271,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144B(1)(xi),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 249(4)(b),Section 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON‟BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON‟BLE
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”] heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and argued in support of the same.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,25,94,308/- in the bank account of the assessee but has failed to file the return of income during the impugned assessment year. It is also noticed that the assessee has not appeared before the Ld. AO and submitted the evidences in support of his contention that the assessee does not have taxable income for the AY 2013-14. Section 249(4)(b) of the Act will be triggered only when there is an obligation cast upon the assessee to pay advance tax. The assessee in his reply to the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, dated 11/11/2023, has stated that he does not have any taxable income for the AY 2013-14. We also find that the assessee has not utilized the opportunity as per the proviso to section 249(4) of the Act to make an application to the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC citing good and sufficient reason to be recorded in 7 writing exempting him from the operation of the aforesaid statutory provisions. We therefore are of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO to examine the facts by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the case in accordance with law. We therefore set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication as above. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee ( ) is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
ITA No. 21/Viz/2024 (AY 2013-14)
Since the grounds raised in quantum appeal of the assessee in (AY 2013-14) (supra) are allowed for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, this penalty appeal being consequential in nature is also being remitted back to the file of the Ld.AO. Accordingly, the grounds raised in this appeal (ITA No. 21/Viz/2024) are allowed for statistical purposes.
8 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 21/Viz/2024) is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ex-consequenti, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (दुव्िूरु आर.एलरेड्डी) (एसबालाकृष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 25.06.2024 OKK - SPS Copy of the order forwarded to:- धनधााररती/ 1. The Assessee–Vasu Kumar Vaddi, 16/372-16-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. राजस्ि/The Revenue –Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam. 2.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, आयकरआयुक्त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. धिभागीयप्रधतधनधध, आयकरअपीलीयअधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम/ 5. DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam गाडाफ़ाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026