TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2025 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 of the Act passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by invalidity invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the fact that the appellant had filed original return of income. 2.1 In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating merits which is in violation of principles of natural jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action was carried out on 30.07.2018 in the case of Mehta Soni Group, during which business premises of Mehta Finance and Mehta Corporation were covered and it was allegedly found that these concerns were engaged in providing accommodation entries by accepting cash and issuing cheques or demand drafts. Based on this third-party information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee had entered into transactions amounting to Rs. 36,97,000/- with M/s Mehta Finance and Rs. 76,05,029/- with M/s Mehta Corporation during the year under consideration, aggregating to Rs. 1,13,02,029/-, which was treated as undisclosed money. 4. Accordingly, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated and thereafter notice under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id an amount equal to the advance tax payable on the assessed income. The CIT(Appeals) held that payment of advance tax equal to the assessed income was a mandatory pre-condition for admission of appeal under section 249(4)(b) of the Act where no return had been filed, and since the assessee had neither paid such tax nor sought exemption under the proviso to section 249(4)(b), the appeal was not admissible and was accordingly dismissed without adjudicating the issues on merits. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(Appeals) is legally unsustainable as the foundational a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on by the Assessing Officer. On the issue of advance tax, the ld. counsel submitted that it is a well settled principle that advance tax is payable only on admitted income and not on income which is disputed or assessed ex parte. It was argued that insisting upon payment of advance tax on disputed additions defeats the statutory right of appeal and is contrary to settled law. The ld. counsel also submitted that since the assessment itself suffers from serious legal infirmities, including violation of faceless reassessment provisions under section 151A of the Act and mechanical approval under section 151 of the Act, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parte. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (243 ITR 48) has held that interest and advance tax provisions operate only on income which is accepted or admitted and not on income which is ultimately found not chargeable. In the case of Balwinder Singh vs. ITO [2024] 163 taxmann.com 599 (Amritsar - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee had no taxable income and there was no obligation on assessee to pay advance tax under section 208, Commissioner (Appeals) should have admitted appeal for adjudication on merits and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have refused to admit appeal for hearing for non-payment of tax as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs....