Case Law Details
Yalamati Raghavendra Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Yalamati Raghavendra vs ITO, the ITAT Bangalore addressed an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 6th August 2024, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.
The CIT(A) had initially dismissed the appeal in limine, citing the non-payment of admitted tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. However, the assessee later produced evidence of the payment of the admitted tax, which amounted to Rs. 1,42,200/-, and requested that the matter be remitted to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. SSS Projects Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 177 of 2014), where it was held that an appeal should not be dismissed solely due to the delayed payment of admitted tax. The High Court ruled that when the admitted tax is paid, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for examination on merits.
The ITAT, following the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, restored the appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to verify the payment of the admitted tax and, if confirmed, adjudicate the issues on merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the asses see is directed against CIT(A)’ s order dated 06.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.
2. At the outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine without adjudicating on merits. The reason for dismissing the appeal in limine is on account of non-payment of admitted tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that assessee had now paid the admitted tax and placed on record the challan evidencing payment of admitted tax. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. SSS Projects Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No.177 of 2014 and contended that when admitted taxes are paid though subsequently, the appeal may be heard on merits. Therefore, it was submitted that the matter may be restored to the CIT(A) to adjudicate issues on merits.
3. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-payment of the admitted tax for a sum of Rs. 1,42,200/-. Now assessee had produced proof of payment of the same and prayed that the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.
5. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. SSS Projects Ltd., Vs. DCIT (supra) had held that since assessee had deposited admitted tax, the subject matter of appeal is remitted to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. SSS Projects Ltd., Vs. DCIT (supra) reads as follows:
“8. The substantial questions of law on which, the appeal was admitted would not arise for consideration at this stage, since we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the First Appellate Authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax. The First and Second Appellate Authorities refused to entertain the appeal of the appellant herein only on the ground that the appellant had failed to deposit the admitted tax. Therefore, any question that is to be examined shall have to be decided by the Appellate Authorities on merits. Since the appellant has deposited the admitted tax as on this date, we deem it appropriate to remit the subject matter of the appeal to the First Appellate Authority i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax.”
6. Therefore, the issue is restored to the files of the CIT(A) to examine the claim of the assessee that the admitted tax has been paid. If the CIT(A) finds that the admitted tax has been paid, he shall adjudicate the issues on merits. It is ordered accordingly.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Author Bio
