TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.R. filed an affidavit of the assessee explaining the reason for delay that assessee was pursuing the remedy by filing application u/s 154 of the Act on 10/04/2024 which was dismissed on 15.07.2024 by the NFAC. Later, assessee took steps to file present appeal which was actually filed on 19.07.2024. Therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. The Ld.DR submitted that the reason assigned in the affidavit for condoning the delay is not sufficient cause as there was no embargo to the assessee to file the appeal on time, thus, the ld.DR sought for dismissal of the appeal on delay in latches. 4. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced by the assessee and in our opinion, there was a good and suf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by the assessee. 7. As against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 16/03/2023, the assessee is before us on following grounds: "1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in dismissing the appeal holding that the appellant has not paid the amount equal to advance tax as required u/s. 249[4] of the Act and hence, the appeal filed cannot be admitted without appreciating that the provisions of section 249[4] of the Act have no application at all under the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs." 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the very basis for initiating the assessment proceedings is based on wrong information. The information sent by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi which is the sale transaction for sale consideration of Rs. 45 Lakhs dated 07/10/2017, is nowhere connected to the assessee (placed at pages 63-75 of P.B.). On the other hand, the actual transaction of purchase of property on 06/10/2017 for Rs. 31 Lakhs (placed at pages 20 to 31 of the paper book). It was further submitted that when the assessee has disputed the entire addition itself and the tax liability payable by the assessee, the question of paying advance tax does not arise. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax, therefore in our opinion invoking the provision of section 249(4) of the act by the ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. Since the Tribunal being a final fact finding authority and considering the fact that the assessee has advanced the argument on the merit of the case as well, we have gone through the material produced by the assessee. It is found that the ld.AO based on the information received from National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi initiated proceedings u/s. 148 of the act wherein an information has been provided that the 'assessee had bought an immovable property from Shri Madhava Gatti for sale consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- on 07/10/2017' which was the sole basis for the initiation of the proceedings. The Ld.AR has produced the said info....