Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from the order of 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the ld. ITO, Ward-I (3), Jalandhar, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed appeal against the impugned appeal order. The assessment was completed with addition total amount of Rs.7,21,21,705/-. The ld. AO, in order of assessment indicated that the self-assessment tax amount to Rs.1,01,815/- was not paid by the assessee during filing of the return. The return processed u/s 143(1) and total demand was raised amount to Rs.1,05,160/-. Return of the assessee was taken for scrutiny U/s 143(3) of the Act. After the order U/s 143(3)/144 the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.
The ld. AR first argued and submitted a written submission. But it is questioned that the self-assessment tax was not paid, so, the entire appeal will be not entertained by the bench. The ld. AR was unable to place proper reply against the non-payment of self-assessment tax and was not able to submit any proof for payment the same.
The ld. DR fully relied on the observation of the bench and invited our attention in CIT(A) order para 3 which is reproduced as below: 3 Assessment Year: 2014-15
“3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,62,430/-. The return was processed through CPC u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 and a demand of Rs. 1,05,160/-was created. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons of “Large amount of sundry creditors”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer afforded several opportunities on various occasions to the assessee to furnish complete postal addresses in respect of six sundry creditors shown in balance sheet of assessee who were stated to have given to the assessee an amount totalling Rs.7,2I,21,705/-. The assessing officer also noticed that upon processing u/s 143(1) ofthe I.T. Act, 1961 through CPC, a demand of Rs. 1,05,160/- was created whereas the assessee in its return of income had claimed payment of self-assessment tax for the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 1,01,815/- which was not verifiable on OLTAS. Accordingly, the assessing officer also afforded opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim as regards payments of self-assessment tax for the A.Y. 2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14.”
We heard the rival submission of both the parties. It is found that the assessee had not paid the self-assessment tax. Accordingly, the non-payment of admitted tax, the appeal cannot be entertained. The ld. AR argued that the tax should be paid very shortly but now the assessee is suffering the financial 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 stringency. So, the ld. AR requested to abate the order till completion of the further action. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the assessee’s plea. Thus, in view of the above we dismiss the present appeal filed by the assessee with liberty that upon completion of pending action, the assessee may prefer to appeal a fresh or seek recall of order after payment of admitted tax.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2023