ITAT allows appeal despite non-payment of advance tax when assessee has no taxable income under Section 249(4)(b)

ITAT Raipur set aside CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax under Section 249(4)(b). The assessee had not filed return of income but claimed no taxable income for the year. ITAT held that advance tax payment requirement under Section 249(4)(b) applies only when assessee has obligation to pay advance tax under Sections 208-209. Since assessee had no taxable income, no advance tax obligation existed, making the appeal maintainable. Matter remanded to CIT(A) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) under Sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal include the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under sec. 69A, non-compliance with provisions of sec. 249(4)(b), and dismissal of appeal despite payment before filing.

Issue 1: Addition under sec. 69A
The Assessing Officer (A.O) noted cash deposits during demonetization period and issued notice u/s 142(1) for filing return of income. Assessee claimed deposits were from agriculture income and land sale proceeds. A.O issued show cause notice u/s 69A as source was not substantiated. CIT(Appeals) upheld A.O's decision. Assessee contended the deposits were from cash withdrawals. Tribunal found lack of evidence to support source, hence upheld A.O's decision.

Issue 2: Compliance with sec. 249(4)(b)
CIT(Appeals) dismissed appeal citing non-payment of advance tax as required u/s 249(4)(b). Assessee argued no obligation to pay advance tax due to lack of taxable income, supported by judicial precedents. Tribunal agreed, stating no obligation to pay advance tax if no taxable income, setting aside CIT(Appeals) decision and directing reevaluation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(Appeals) decision on both issues. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's lack of taxable income exempted them from the obligation to pay advance tax, as supported by legal precedents. The case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for further consideration, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard.

---