TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as 'not admitted' on account of failure to pay advance tax, in a case where return of income has not been filed. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that this is a case where the appellant is of the bonafide belief that there is no liability to tax and to expect the appellant to pay tax equivalent to advance tax on assessed income is far-fetched. 4) Without prejudice to the above, dismissing the appeal as 'not admitted' without opportunity of rebutting his findings is against principles of natural justice.." 2. None has appeared on behalf of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24 vide order dated 05.07.2024 held as under: "6. This tribunal has taken a consistent view on this point that the income assessed by the AO in the reassessment proceedings does not attract provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In the latest decision this Tribunal in case of Ramdas Yadav vs. ITO in ITA No. 163/Ind/2024 vide order dated 27.06.2024 held in para 4.1 as under: "4.1 Thus, the appeal was dismissed in limine as not admissible for want of payment of advance tax u/s 249(4) of the Act. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in case of Shri Pushpendra Singh Chouhan vs. ITO in ITA No. 122/Ind/2024 vide order dated 24.06.2024 in para 7 & 8 as under: "7. We hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not filed Rol as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax, which was payable by it. It can thus be seen that the CIT(A) had no occasion to examine the merits of the impugned additions. 5. We have heard parties. Perused record. It can be seen that the case was Initially selected for scrutiny, which was completed on 29.03.2015, and there was no change in the returned income of Rs. 51.80.800/- in the absence of any additions being made. It is a matter of record that originally the return was filed for the relevant year under consideration on 29.09.2012. It was not disputed during the course of hearing that the advance tax has per the assessed income of Rs. 51,80,800/- has been paid. Here is the case of reassess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,- (a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or (b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause." The CIT(Appeals) observed that as the assessee who had not filed his return of income had neither paid an amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act would stand triggered only where any obligation was cast upon the assessee to pay "advance tax". As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, in absence of any taxable income for the year under consideration [as was stated by him in the "SOF" filed before the CIT(Appeals)] no obligation was cast upon him to compute and pay any advance tax u/ss. 208 & 209 of the Act. Considering the fact that as no obligation was cast upon the assessee to compute/deposit any amount towards "advance tax' for the subject year, I am unable to concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who dismissed the appeal as not maintainable for the reason of non-compliance off mandatory condition contemplated in Clause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Accordingly, to maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited above and consequently the impugned order of CIT(A) is set aside being contrary to the provisions of law. 7. Thus, this Tribunal has taken a consistent view and held that for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the reassessment order passed by the AO the question for payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act does not arise. Accordingly this issue is now covered by the earlier decisions of this tribunal and consequently the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside being contrary to the provisions of law. Since the assessment order was also passed ex-parte....