TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.834/Viz/2025, wherein the impugned order has been assailed by the assessee on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B IT Act dt: 28.03.2024, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order passed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dt: 17.10.2025 is not in accordance with the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the said provision has no application to the facts of the assessee's case. 3. The learned CIT(A) misdirected himself in law in applying section 249(4) and consequently rejecting the appeal on a technical ground, rendering the impugned finding invalid, unsustainable, and bad in law. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal ground challenging the validity of notices issued under sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148, and further passing the assessment order, all by JAO, which were issued in violation of sections 144B, 130 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 7. Shri C Subrahmanyam, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case by most arbitrarily declining to admit the appeal and dismissing the same. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a State Government employee who, for the year under consideration, inadvertently omitted to file his return of income. The Ld. AR further submitted that though the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal, i.e., "Form-35" had against the "Column No.9" wherein information was sought as to whether the amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) had been paid, specifically stated that the same was "Not applicable", but the CIT(A) had summarily brushed aside the same and wrongly observed that the assessee had failed to comply with the mandate of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) ough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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) or 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." 11. Ostensibly, section 249(4) of the Act contemplates the conditions which are statutorily required to be satisfied failing which the appeal filed by an assessee before the CIT(A) shall not be admitted, viz., (a) where the assessee has filed a return of income, the tax due on the income returned by him has been paid; or (b) where the assessee has not filed any return of income, then an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him has been paid. At this stage, we may herein observe that the second situation contemplated under clause (b) of section 249, i.e., a case where the assessee has not filed the return of income comes with a concession as per which on an application made by the assessee/appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals), for any good an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 192 of the Act, he had no other income chargeable to tax for the subject year and 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, erred in summarily discarding the same. At the same time, we cannot also remain oblivion of the fact that the assessee had failed to comply with the obligation that was cast upon him as per the "proviso" to section 249(4) of the Act, where he ought to have filed an application before the CIT(A) based on which he had claimed that the obligation under section 249(4)(b) of the Act was not applicable in his case. 16. Be that as it may, we are of a firm conviction that in the totality of the facts involved in the present case, the matter requires to be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) who is directed to redecide the appeal taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had specifically claimed before him that no obligation was cast upon him to estimate the ....