C2M TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-6(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if the admitted tax is paid even after the appeal is filed, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merits, following a Karnataka High Court ruling. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of admitted tax. This was a second round before the Tribunal, with the earlier order being ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal dismissed for non-payment of admitted tax can be admitted if the tax is paid subsequently. The applicability of the Karnataka High Court ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI8 citing19 Taxmann.com 154 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
Assessee by: Shri Jitendra Singh Department by: Shri K. Ravi Kiran सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing: 27.05.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 03.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
This is an appeal against the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2002-03 wherein the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in view of the provision containted in section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”) because at the relevant time the assessee failed to pay admitted tax.
I.T.A. No.1837/Mum/11 A.Y. 2002-03
We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. This is a second round of the assessee before Tribunal. In the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.11.2008, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has directed the learned CIT(A) to pass the fresh order after giving an adequate opportunity to the assessee because the order was passed against ex-parte. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy and passed the order dated 25.11.2010 by arriving at this conclusion that the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted on account of non-furnishing the tax. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that now the controversy is quite clear in view of the law settled in [2012] 19 taxmann.com 154, High Court of Karnataka, Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh wherein it is held the even after the dismissal of the appeal if the tax is paid by the assessee then the appeal is liable to be admitted and decided on merit. Now coming to the instant case the assessee has submitted details of payment of tax for the A.Y.2002-03 at page 3 of the paper book, no doubt it is further required to be verified in accordance with law. The assessee has also filed the copy of challans which has been attached at page 4 to 9 of the paper book which speaks about the payment of the tax to the authority. In view of the above mentioned law passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh, we are of the view that when the assessee has paid the admitted tax
I.T.A. No.1837/Mum/11 A.Y. 2002-03 even after filing the appeal before First Appellate Authority then the appeal is liable to be decided on merit, therefore, in view of the said law we hereby set aside the order in question and direct the learned CIT(A) concerned to decide the matter afresh on merits in the interest of justice after giving full and adequate opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed accordingly.
More judgments on Section 249(4)
- Sea Side Hotel Private Limited, Mumbai vs Ward 11(2)(1), MumbaiITA 7336/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Gurujala Babu Rao, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-11(1), HyderabadITA 884/HYD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Deep Bahadur Singh, Rewa vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, RewaITA 94/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2015-16
- Arcotech Ltd, Rewari vs ACIT CC-7, DelhiITA 3470/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Kanersar VI Ka Society, Pune vs The ITO Ward 8(3), PuneITA 2042/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026