MRS. MUSARATH NAVEED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In this appeal filed by assessee, its grievance is that CIT (A)-II, Bangalore, dismissed its appeal before him im limine for non-payment of admitted tax.

Nobody made appearance on behalf of the assessee, but a written submission has been filed. In its written submission, it is stated that it has been taxed on an income which did not arise during the impugned assessment year.

Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the first appellate authority.

We have perused the orders, carefully gone through the written submissions and heard the Ld. DR. Original return was filed by the assessee declaring income of Rs.84,09,790/-, on which due taxes were paid. Thereafter notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee where upon, the assessee filed another return in which income declared was Rs.1,32,28,860/-. The tax payable on such amount was Rs.52,71,338/-. The tax that was paid was only Rs.30,00,921/-. Hence admitted tax was not paid in full. CIT (A) in our opinion, has rightly noted that the appeal was defective since the tax due on the income returned by the assessee it was not paid. Though the assessee has stated before the CIT (A) that the return filed pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act was only a revised return, the CIT (A) has reproduced Section 148 of the Act and concluded that a return of income included a return filed pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that admitted tax having not been paid, CIT (A) was justified in coming to a conclusion that the appeal was defective and not maintainable as per Section.249(4)(a) of the Act. We do not find any reason to interfere.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.