TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (1) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l cannot be admitted as per provisions of section 249(4). Therefore, he dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine. Against the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine, the assessee has preferred appeal before the ITAT. 2.1. At the time of hearing before us, the id. DR raised objection in admitting the appeal against the above order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is u/s. 249(4) of the Income-tax Act and not u/s. 250 and, therefore, appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not competent. He submitted that u/s. 250, the CIT(A) can pass the orders as provided in section 251 i.e. he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment order or he may set aside the assessment or refer the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the order of the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The order of the CIT(A) dismissing the assessee's appeal amounts to order u/s. 250 of the Act and, therefore, the appeal to the ITAT is competent. In this respect, he relied upon the following decisions:-- CIT v. Kalipada Ghosh [1987] 167 ITR 173 (Ori.), Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 (SC), CIT v. Nanhibai Jaiswal [1988] 171 ITR 646 (MP). Regarding the payment of tax he submitted that there was search at the premises of the assessee on 8-11-1990. In the search cash amounting to Rs. 5,50,000 was seized. The assessee on 27-11-1990 requested the DDI to adjust the cash seized against the tax liability. The assessee again in the computation of the income filed alongwith ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh in a reference before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, the revenue contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was not an order u/s. 250 but an order u/s. 249(4) and, therefore, the appeal to the Tribunal was not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court rejecting the revenue's reference held "That since the appeal was not admitted on the ground that the amount of tax as contemplated by clause (a) of section 249(4) had not been paid, the order passed by the Commissioner amounted to an order disposing of the appeal u/s. 250 and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal was maintainable". 3. 1. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court also had the occasion to consider the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar . But we find that the facts of that case and the issue involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were altogether different than the issue under appeal before us. 3.5. Similarly, in the case of Girdher Javar & Co. and Lalji Haridas the facts were altogether different. In these two cases the first appellate authority had issued the direction to the AO for making further enquiries pending the disposal of appeal before him. The assessee had moved an appeal to the Tribunal against such direction. On these facts, it was held by their Lordships that the appeal to the Tribunal is competent only against the substantive order of the first appellate authority. Since in these cases there was no final order from the first a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come at Rs. 8,03,980 there was a working of taxes as under : Income Tax Surcharge Total Tax on : Rs. 5,00,000 2,27,600 27,312 2,54,912 3,03,980 1,51,990 18,239 1,70,229 ----------------------- 4,25,141 ----------------------- Taxes paid (a) Cash seized on search on 8-11-1990 5,00,000 (b) Cash found of 8-11-1990 but shown as seized on 12-11-1990 50,000 5,50,000 ----------------------- Refundable : 1,24,809 ----------------------- However, the revenue adjusted on 8-11-1993 the seized amount of Rs. 5,00,000 against the tax payable by the assessee for the asst. year under appeal. 5. From these facts it is clear that the assessee requested soon after the search that whatever tax was due on the income surrendered be adjusted out o....