TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily raised two grounds namely ground Nos. 2 & 3. Ground No.2 relates to whether the CIT(A) has erred in invoking section 249(4)(b) of the Act and dismissing the appeals in limine by holding that advance tax liability is to be based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him despite sufficient cause and reasons stated in the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant has not paid the advance tax and the appeals are showing are deficient in ITBA. The appellant has not provided any reasons/evidences to exempt him from the application of this clause (b) before the undersigned. In view of the above, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication." 5. The Ld.AR had submitted that advance tax liability of an assessee arises on admitted or undisputed income of the assessee and not on the addition which are disputed by the assessee. The Ld.AR by referring to the provisions of section 208 & 209 of the Act, submitted that the computation and payment of advance tax depend on the estimation of current years income based on latest previous year income assessed or any subsequent year income returned by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid on assessed income (i.e., on addition made to the income in assessment which are all disputed by the assessee). Therefore, advance tax that was payable by assessee is as per the provisions of section 208 & 209 of the Act and not the disputed income. The relevant finding of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in this context read as follows:- "10. Having held so, we have noted that before the AO the assessee remained unheard and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal as non- maintainable on account of the fact that no return of income was filed by the assessee and no advance taxes were paid by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), we hold was grossly incorrect in treating the assessee's appeal nonmaintainable for the aforesaid rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate his current income and income-tax thereon shall be calculated at the rates in force in the financial year; (b) where the calculation is made by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making an order under sub-section (3) of section 210, the total income of the latest previous year in respect of which the assessee has been assessed by way of regular assessment or the total income returned by the assessee in any return of income furnished by him for any subsequent previous year, whichever is higher, shall be taken and income-tax thereon shall be calculated at the rates in force in the financial year; (c) where the calculation is made by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making an amended order under sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hold, that the Ld.CIT(A) was incorrect in law to have dismissed assesses appeal as non- maintainable for not having paid advance taxes on its income, as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act." 8. In the instant case, admittedly assessee has not filed the return of income for the relevant assessment years. For the past years, assessee has been a non-filer. The assessee before the AO did not appear and the assessments were completed u/s. 144 of the Act. Before the FAA, the assessee had contested the entire additions made. Therefore, there is no admitted tax liability to be paid by the assessee. Nor, there was advance tax payable as per section 208 & 209 of the Act. Hence, the dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) in limine for not having paid adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d resulted in a delay of 869 days. 10. The Ld.DR had opposed the condonation of delay. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee is not an educated person. There was requisition of money seized amounting to Rs. 99.75 lakhs u/s. 132A of the Act. The assessee was in receipt of notices under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is stated that on receipt of said notices, the assessee went into hiding and was completely unaware of the notice issued by the AO during course proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s.144 of the Act. It is submitted that only when show- cause notice is issued u/s. 263 of the Act on 13.01.2013, ass....