TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant-Assessee, and Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. 2. This appeal is filed by the Assessee, impugning the order passed in ITA(SS)A No.15/Bang/2012 dated 19.09.2014, relating to the Block Assessment Period from 01.04.1988 to 27.03.1999. 3. The appeal is admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the dismissal of the first appeal by alleging nonpayment of admitted tax? ii) When the proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act were challenged as unlawful, and the return filed in pursuance of the notice under Section 158BC of the Act was not in accordance with law and accordingly non est, wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay and latches. The Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to re-hear the matter on merits. The CIT(A)-II under order dated 27.02.2009 rejected the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax as required under Section 249(4) of the Act. The Assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while rejecting the contention of the Assessee as regards the validity of the return of income, held that the CIT(A) could not proceed to admit the appeal unless the admitted tax was paid. 5. Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel, along with Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant-Assessee, submits that a notice under Section 158BC was issued on 21.06.1999 and served on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) can do so only after admitting the appeal under Section 249 of the Act. Unless the appeal is admitted, the CIT(A) cannot assume jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is, therefore, submitted that irrespective of the nature of challenge raised in the appeal, the payment of admitted tax is mandatory. The Tribunal, while rightly appreciating sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, has held that the appeal before the CIT(A) was not maintainable on account of non-payment of the admitted tax. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and have perused the appeal records 8. Section 158BC of the Act, as in force at the relevant time, reads as follows: "Procedure for block assessment. 158B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00, the Assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 40,00,000/-. However, the Assessee has not paid the tax on the admitted income. 11. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. When the matter was further appealed before the Tribunal, the maintainability of the appeal before the CIT(A) and compliance with Section 249(4)(a) of the Act came to be examined. The Assessee contends that, since the validity of the return in which the income is admitted is questioned before the CIT(A), there is no obligation to pay the admitted tax. It is further contended that unless the income is admitted in a validly filed return, a mere admission cannot impose a condition to pay the admitted tax. Section 249(4) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. This bar applies even where the legality or otherwise of the income admitted by the Assessee in the return, which is under challenge, is in question. Since the statute has made no provision for any exception or conferred authority to waive the requirement, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be regarded as unsustainable. 14. Sri Parthasarathi, learned counsel, further contends that the term 'return' referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 249 contemplates a valid return in the eye of law. This proposition is advanced to urge that, unless the income is admitted in a valid return, the payment of admitted tax is not a precondition. We find it difficult to accept this submission on a plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 249 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not adjudicated the correctness or otherwise of the block assessment order based on the return filed beyond the prescribed period, we find it difficult to address this contention in the present appeal, as it does not arise from the order under challenge. 17. The Tribunal is justified in holding that the Assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) is not maintainable for non-payment of admitted tax under Section 249(4)(a) of the Act. We find no reason to take a different view, nor has any demonstrable ground been shown for interference. 18. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant-Assessee. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-As....