Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune heard an appeal by Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which dismissed the appeal due to non-payment of advance tax under Section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case pertained to Assessment Year 2017-18, with the assessee challenging multiple additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), including a ₹6,20,000 cash deposit during the demonetization period, business income computation under Section 44AD, and estimated additions based on turnover. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds without considering the case’s merits.
Upon review, ITAT noted that the assessee, a senior citizen, had paid advance tax of ₹4,000 and self-assessment tax of ₹1,750 but had a minor shortfall. Given that tax estimations may have variations, the tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) had discretionary power under the proviso to Section 249(4) to admit the appeal. The ITAT found the assessee’s explanation reasonable, considering health issues and subsequent tax payments. The tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) should take a lenient approach and decide the appeal based on its merits. As a result, ITAT set aside the dismissal order and directed CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity and review the case with relevant documents. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
