MRS. MUSARATH NAVEED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 451/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 June 2015AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as defective because the admitted tax due on the income returned was not paid in full. The return filed pursuant to a notice under section 148 is considered a return of income for the purpose of appeal maintainability.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-payment of admitted tax. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 84,09,790, but after a notice under section 148, filed another return declaring Rs. 1,32,28,860, with a tax liability of Rs. 52,71,338, of which only Rs. 30,00,921 was paid.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal is maintainable before the CIT(A) when the admitted tax due on the income declared in the return, including one filed under section 148, is not paid in full.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 249(4)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN

For Respondent: Shri. P. Dhivahar, JCIT

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

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.

2.

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.

ITA.451/Bang/2014 page - 2 It is also mentioned that assessment for impugned assessment year stood set aside u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

3.

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

According to him, assessee having not paid admitted tax, the CIT (A) had rightly not gone into the merits of the case.

4.

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.

ITA.451/Bang/2014 page - 3

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th day of June, 2015.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →