VILAS DINKAR PAIGUDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2) PUNE, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.09.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act. On verification of the data available on Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS), the AO had come to know that appellant had deposited Rs.2,36,70,000/- in the bank account and therefore, formed an opinion that income escaped assessment of tax. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2019. No return of income was filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessment came be to completed by the AO vide order dated 26.12.2019 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 at a total income of Rs.1,55,04,783/-.

Against the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal as not maintainable invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by holding that the appellant had not paid the advance tax on the returned income.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

The ld. Counsel submits that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) has no application to the facts of the case inasmuch as there is no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay advance tax.

On the other hand, the ld. DR has no objection to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for denovo disposal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The said provisions are attracted in a situation, where the appellant had neither filed return of income nor paid the advance tax. On mere reading of the assessment order, it would suggest that returned income is only Rs.1,35,209/- which means that there was no tax due on the returned income and therefore, question of paying advance tax does not arise. In such a situation, provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act have no application to the facts of the present case. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) fell in serious error in applying the said provisions for dismissal of appeal in limine. Since we have held above that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act have no application to the facts, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and remand the matter to the file of NFAC/CIT(A) for denovo disposal in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.