MOHD AYUB KHAN,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABOOBNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the advance tax payments and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was not admitted because the required advance tax payment was not substantiated. The assessee claimed to have made payments but could not provide proof due to lack of opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal without verifying the advance tax payment and providing an opportunity to submit proof.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri P.V.Subba Raju, DR
Hearing: 12/03/2024

आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 29/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Mohd. Ayub Khan (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not make the requisite payment of the amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which is a condition precedent for admitting the appeal. Learned AR submitted that the assessee paid the same under various challans, but since the learned CIT(A) did not grant any opportunity to submit the copies of the challans, the assessee could not produce the evidence.

3.

Learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) noticed that sufficient opportunity was provided and, therefore, there is no point in the assessee arguing that the evidence could not be produced before the learned CIT(A) for want of opportunity.

4.

Learned AR produced the copies of challans dated 15/03/2017, 30/03/2017 etc. Since the assessee had already paid the advance tax, the appeal needs to be admitted by the learned CIT(A) and adjudicated on merits. 5. Hence, I set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to verify the payment of advance tax and admit the appeal. Assessee is directed to produce the copies of the challans under which the advance tax was paid, before the learned CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →