Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 29.01.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed. Based on the information that the appellant made a deposit of Rs.27,40,000/- in the Bank of India, Chuye Karveer, 2 Kolhapur during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. In the circumstances, the AO vide order dated 13.11.2019 was constrained to make best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act by bringing to tax the cash deposit of Rs.27,40,000/-, thereby assessing the income at Rs.25,22,500/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned dismissed the appeal in limine for non payment of advance tax invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The ld. AR submits that but for the addition made in the assessment there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay the advance tax. The provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act have no application to the facts of the present case. The assessee was not required to pay advance tax on the basis of assessed tax but was only required to pay advance tax, if any, which was payable by him, on the basis of his undisputed admitted income. It is therefore prayed for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has no serious objection for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A).
3 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) by holding that the appellant had failed to discharge the advance tax liability. However, there is no material on record to indicate that there was any taxable income but for the addition made by the AO. In the circumstances, there was no liability either to pay the advance tax or pay the self-assessment tax. The CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b). Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue in appeal on merits based on the material available on record. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.