Appeal under section 249(4) revived; authority must reconsider advance tax exemption, allow evidence under rule 46A

ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) refusing to entertain the assessee's appeal under section 249(4) for non-payment of advance tax, holding that CIT(A) failed to determine the exact advance tax payable and to consider exemption from the rigours of section 249(4). The matter was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. CIT(A) was directed to permit the assessee to file an application seeking exemption from advance tax payment, allow additional evidence, and decide both the procedural issue and the appeal on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and AO in terms of rule 46A. The assessee's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority as infructuous, for alleged non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without determining the assessee's advance tax liability and without considering the proviso to section 249(4)(b), was legally sustainable.

1.2 Consequentially, whether the matter required remand to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, including on merits of the additions and other grounds raised by the assessee.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of dismissal of appeal as infructuous under section 249(4)(b)

Legal framework

2.1 The Tribunal referred to section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which mandates, where no return has been filed by the assessee, payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable as a precondition for admission of appeal. The Tribunal also noticed the proviso to section 249(4)(b), empowering the Commissioner (Appeals), on application by the appellant and for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, to exempt the assessee from the operation of that clause.

2.2 The Tribunal further referred to Chapter XVII-C, including sections 208 and 209, governing liability to pay advance tax and the manner of its computation, noting in particular that advance tax is payable only where the tax payable during the financial year is Rs. 10,000 or more, and that section 209 prescribes the method of computation.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 and had not paid an amount equivalent to the advance tax payable, thereby holding the appeal to be not liable to be admitted and infructuous.

2.4 The Tribunal noted that the order of the first appellate authority did not specify (i) how much advance tax was payable by the assessee, or (ii) whether the provisions of section 208 were at all applicable in the assessee's case. The assessee's contention was that its income was below the basic exemption limit and therefore no advance tax liability arose.

2.5 The Tribunal emphasized that, as per the proviso to section 249(4)(b), the assessee had an option to move an application before the first appellate authority seeking exemption from the requirement of payment of advance tax. No such application had been filed, and consequently the discretion available to the first appellate authority under the proviso was not exercised.

2.6 The Tribunal also recorded that the first appellate authority had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, including the additions under section 68 and other grounds raised, and that the dismissal purely on the alleged non-compliance of section 249(4)(b), without quantifying advance tax liability or examining applicability of section 208, rendered the order deficient.

Conclusions

2.7 The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any finding by the first appellate authority as to the quantum of advance tax payable by the assessee and applicability of section 208, and in view of the non-exercise of discretion under the proviso to section 249(4)(b), the dismissal of the appeal as infructuous could not be sustained.

2.8 The order of the first appellate authority was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. The assessee was permitted to file an application seeking exemption from the requirement of payment of advance tax, which the first appellate authority was directed to decide in accordance with law and on consideration of the totality of facts.

2.9 The Tribunal directed that the assessee be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard and to file necessary evidences in support of the relief claimed. The first appellate authority was also directed, where required, to grant opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

2.10 All grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, including those on merits of the assessment and additions, were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, to be adjudicated afresh by the first appellate authority in the remand proceedings.

---