Case Law Details
Smt. Ramadevi Nelaturi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
In the case of Smt. Ramadevi Nelaturi vs. ITO, the ITAT Hyderabad addressed the dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A)-NFAC under Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had not filed her return of income for the assessment year 2019-20, leading the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148 after identifying cash deposits of ₹16.5 lakh in her bank account. A “Best Judgment Assessment” was completed under Section 69C, treating the deposits as unexplained income. On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the case citing non-payment of advance tax as per Section 249(4). However, the Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 249(4) were incorrectly applied, as the liability for advance tax under Section 209 was contingent upon the addition made by the Assessing Officer and not pre-existing. The Tribunal held that the absence of advance tax liability should not prevent the appeal from being heard on its merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the NFAC to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law. This decision reinforces that appeals should not be dismissed based on advance tax liability when such liability arises solely from disputed assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/07/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2019-20.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the A.Y 2019-20. The Assessing Officer on receipt of information that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.16,50,000/- with the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Kadapa and formed an opinion that the income had escaped the assessment. Accordingly, issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2019-20. The appellant neither complied with the notices issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer has completed the “Best Judgment Assessment” by bringing to tax a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue that arises for my consideration is, whether the learned CIT (A) NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limini, by placing reliance on the provisions of section 249(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961. From the material available on record, it would be clear that there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but for the addition made by the Assessing Officer. There was no material available on record to show that there is a liability to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 209 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) ought not to have invoked the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act, I therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the NFAC to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th November, 2024.
Author Bio
