TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows appeal, sets aside CIT(A) & Tribunal orders, directs Revenue on seized Hundis</h1> <h3>Mansukhlal Versus CIT and Anr.</h3> Mansukhlal Versus CIT and Anr. - TMI Issues:Appeal against order dismissing appeal for non-compliance of payment of admitted tax under s. 249(4) of the IT Act, 1961.Analysis:The appeal was filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance with the requirement of payment of admitted tax as per s. 249(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) had initially dismissed the appeal for this reason, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. A rectification application submitted by the assessee was also rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee challenged these decisions by filing the current appeal.The appellant argued that due to the seizure of Hundis during a search and seizure conducted by the Revenue, it was impossible to realize the amount and pay the admitted tax required for the appeal to be competent. However, the Revenue had since recovered an amount exceeding the admitted tax from the seized Hundis. The appellant requested that this recovery be adjusted towards the payment of admitted tax to make the appeal maintainable before the CIT(A).The counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that the amount recovered from the seized Hundis exceeded the admitted tax required for the appeal to be competent. Considering this subsequent event and the undisputed recovery amount, the Court held that the non-compliance with the payment of admitted tax, which is a directory requirement, could be deemed to have been rectified. Consequently, the Court directed the Revenue to treat the realized amount as payment of admitted tax, making the appeal before the CIT(A) competent under s. 249(4) of the Act.As a result, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal on its merits, without being influenced by the earlier orders. The Court instructed the CIT(A) to handle the matter expeditiously. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated above.
TaxTMI 