TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice is not correct and is mechanical and violates natural justice. 2. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B is invalid due to non-consideration of detailed information and explanations and submissions, and violation of natural justice. 3. The Id. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 1,11,41,476/- as unexplained money u/s 69A (25,00,000+47,00,000+ 20,77,000+18,16,631+48,350), by treating all bank credits in the appellant's savings account (No.236401500040) as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thereby classifying the entire amount as income from other sources. 4. With regard to the credit of Rs.25,00,000/-, the appellant had duly explained that it was a hand loan extended by his friend, Mr. Mahipal Reddy, which was repaid on 21.08.2019. The AO, without conducting proper inquiry or verifying the evidence submitted, erroneously treated the said sum as unexplained is not correct. 5. The AO wrt deposits of Rs 33,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/-assessed as unexplained money u/s 69A as it was not tallied with the payment schedule of sale proceeds as evident from the copy of registered sale-deed dated 31.07.2019. The AO failed to observe ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 144 of the Act. The AO after making two-fold additions, viz., (i) unexplained money under section 69A of the Act: Rs. 1,10,93,131/-; and (ii) income from other sources: Rs. 48,345/-, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,11,41,480/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Ostensibly, the CIT(A), taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee who had not filed his return of income had failed to pay the amount of advance tax as required per the mandate of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, declined to admit the appeal by treating the same as infructuous. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: "3.1 I have examined facts of the case as also gone through relevant provisions of Income Tax the Act, In the present case, the appellant failed to file ITR. The impugned order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, creating demand of Rs. 1,80,07,451/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, assessing income at Rs. 1,11,41,476/-and appellant was asked by notice issued u/s 156 of the Act to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,80,07,451/-but it is noticed that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xes on admitted income and the assessee who though failed to ITR but have paid an amount equal to the advance tax which was due on their income. In the former situation, provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are not applicable and those assessee's are in advantageous position. In the latter situation, since the assessee's had failed to file ITR, the amount of tax equal to the advance tax which was due on their income would mean the income assessed by the AO. Those assessee's cannot claim later on that they are not liable to pay an amount of tax equal to the advance tax which was due on their income as they are challenging the additions in appeal and that their income was below taxable limit. The appellant has also not requested for exemption from operation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 249 of the Act. 4. Since the appellant has not filed ITR as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed. 5. The appeal is dismissed." 6. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the assessee had failed to file any application based on which he had sought for an exemption from the operation of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act as was mandatorily required by the "proviso" to section 249(4) of the Act, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below. 11. Before proceeding further, we deem it apposite to cull out the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act, as under: "249. (1) to (3)......... (4) No appeal under this 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 [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 209(1) of the Act, that the same encompasses two situations, viz., (i) where the computation of the advance tax is based on the estimation of the current income and the income tax by the assessee; and (ii) where the calculation of the advance tax is made by the AO. Admittedly, in the case before us there has been no calculation of the advance tax by the AO as provided in section 209(1)(b) of the Act. Also, we find there has been no calculation made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of advance tax as contemplated in section 209(1)(a) of the Act. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts, i.e., there has been no calculation of the advance tax payable either by the assessee or by the AO, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee that in absence of any income chargeable to tax for the subject year he was not liable for any advance tax liability could not have been summarily discarded by the CIT(A). In our view, the CIT(A) instead of calling for an explanation from the assessee as to why the obligation to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act was not applicable in his case, had, however, wrongly summarily discarded th....