Assessees justified in tax delay, appeals allowed for fresh consideration on merits.

SHAMRAJ MOORJANI. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

SHAMRAJ MOORJANI. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 093, 927, [2005] 2 SOT 321 (HYD.) Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, was justified in dismissing the appeals of the assessees as infructuous on the ground of non-payment of taxes as per the admitted income under section 249(4)(a) of the IT Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, in Dismissing Appeals as Infructuous:
The sole issue in all these appeals is whether the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, was justified in dismissing the appeals as infructuous due to the assessees not paying the taxes as per the admitted income, invoking section 249(4)(a) of the IT Act, 1961.

Facts of the Case:
- The assessees, consisting of a partnership firm and its family members, were involved in a business in Dubai and had remitted money to their father in Hyderabad, who acquired immovable properties and made bank deposits.
- In 1995, some family members were arrested on allegations of involvement in narcotics trade, but were later acquitted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
- The IT Department searched the premises under section 132 on 22nd Aug., 1997, and the assessees filed block returns of income on 11th Oct., 1999, declaring a net income of Rs. 75,16,763, with a tax payable of Rs. 43,12,708.
- The assessees claimed they had no liquid funds to pay the taxes, and all their immovable properties were attached under section 281B of the IT Act.
- The CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, dismissed the appeals on 27th Oct., 2000, for non-payment of admitted taxes.

Arguments by the Assessees:
- The assessees argued that they had no liquid assets and were prevented from selling their immovable properties due to the attachments by the Revenue.
- They contended that they had sufficient cause for not paying the admitted taxes and cited various case laws to support their position that the appeals should be considered as filed on the date of payment of taxes.

Arguments by the Revenue:
- The Revenue argued that the assessees had not complied with section 249(4)(a) and that there was no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad.
- They contended that the assessees were more interested in releasing their properties rather than paying the taxes and had not paid the admitted taxes even to date.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal found that the assessees had no liquid assets and were prevented from selling their immovable properties due to the attachments by the Revenue.
- It was noted that the assessees were in jail for a significant period and had no other means to generate liquid funds.
- The Tribunal held that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from paying the admitted taxes and that the appeals should be considered as filed on the date of payment of taxes.
- The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which supported the view that the appeals were maintainable and the delay in payment of taxes could be condoned.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, was not justified in dismissing the appeals as infructuous and that the assessees had sufficient cause for non-compliance with section 249(4)(a).
- The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, with a direction to dispose of the same on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessees.