Tribunal directs reassessment based on tax remittance date explanation

Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, C/o. Raj Kumar and Associates Versus ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, C/o. Raj Kumar and Associates Versus ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi - TMI Issues:
Non-payment of tax due on income returned u/s 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal included contentions regarding the non-payment of tax due on the income returned u/s 249(4) of the Act. The assessee had filed a return of income declaring Nil Income but later declared income u/s 115JB of the Act. The tax liability was computed, but the assessee did not make the payment as required by the Act. Consequently, a penalty was imposed by the AO equal to the admitted tax liability. The assessee appealed this penalty, but the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-remittance of tax due on the returned income, citing section 249(4) of the Act.

During the appeal proceedings, the assessee contended that a partial amount had been remitted before filing the appeal, and the complete tax liability had been paid. The ld AR argued that section 249(4) was not applicable in this case and cited various cases in support. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on non-fulfillment of section 249(4)(a) conditions. The ld AR requested the appeal to be restored for adjudication on merits, referencing additional cases to support the argument.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and case laws cited by both parties. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the date of remittance of self-assessed tax should be considered as the date of rectifying the filing defect. Any delay should be explained by the assessee, and if satisfactory, the ld CIT(A) could condone the delay and proceed with adjudicating the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ld CIT(A)'s order and directed a reevaluation of the appeal based on the provided explanation.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the ld CIT(A) was instructed to act as directed, ensuring the proper consideration of the remittance date of the self-assessed tax and the explanation for any delay.