Smt. Prameela Parameshwar Shettigar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Rejection of appeal invoking provisions of section 249(4) for non-payment of advance tax on assessed income in absence of Return of Income is invalid
Assessee had not filed her Return of Income for assessment year 2018-19 as the income was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Assessee’s case was reopened alleging that she had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000. Assessee submitted that the investment made by her towards purchase of property was Rs. 31,00,000 and Rs. 45,00,000 as alleged by the learned AO. The assessee also explained that investment of Rs. 31,00,000 was substantially financed by bank loan and balance was out of her savings. Even though the learned AO accepted the explanation of source provided by the assessee, the learned AO completed the assessment holding that total investment made by the assessee was Rs. 45,00,000 as alleged for reopening of assessment. Consequently, the difference of Rs. 14,00,000 was unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved by the order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee for non-payment of advance tax on assessed income. The order of the CIT(A) was challenged before ITAT both on legal grounds and merits. The assessee contended that the rejection of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of advance tax on assessed income is not correct as she had disputed the entire additions in the assessment order. Consequently there is no liability to pay advance tax. Honourable Bangalore Bench of ITAT held that when assessee disputes the entire addition made in the assessment order and claims that there is no taxable income; the appeal cannot be dismissed for the non-payment of advance tax on assessed income even though assessee has not filed her Return of Income. The rejection of appeal by CIT(A) by invoking provisions of section 249(4) is held to be invalid.
Comments are closed.