Ritika Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Agra)
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax unjustified since entre addition made by AO was challenged and there was no other income which is above threshold limit of being taxable. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
Facts- Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment. It was observed by AO that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.16,24,600/- in Central Bank of India account, out of which an amount of Rs.14,14,600/- was deposited in cash in a single date on 11.11.2016 during the period of demonetization. AO rejected the contentions of the assessee, which led to addition in the hands of assessee to the tune of Rs.16,24,600/- u/s. 69A of the 1961 Act.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as being unadmitted on the ground that the assessee has not filed return of income and has not deposited an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it. CIT(A)relied upon the provisions of section 249(4)(b) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee as being un-admitted. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that there is no admitted income by the assessee and the addition as was made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.16,24,600/- which is also the assessed income in the hands of the assessee, is subject matter of dispute and challenge by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as before Tribunal. Thus, the assessee has never admitted this addition of Rs. 16,24,600/- to be her income ,and under these circumstances, there is no advance tax liability arising on such disputed income keeping in view the claim of the assessee that she was not having any other income in India except that there was interest income which was below matter. In any case, the AO has not brought to tax any income apart from this addition of Rs. 16,24,600/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. Thus, So far as maintainability of appeal before ld. CIT(A) is concerned, I don’t find that in such circumstances the appeal will not be maintainable because entire additions as were made by the AO is subject to dispute and challenge before higher appellate authorities, and that the assessee does not have other income which is above the threshold limit of being taxable, as is emerging from records. In my considered view, the assessee has duly explained with sufficient and reasonable cause that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) is not applicable. Thus, The appellate order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is now restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate denovo appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law.
