HINGORA ALI MOHD VALI MOHD,PARBHANI MAHARASHTRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD HINGOLI, PARBHANI MAHARASHTRA

ITA 2143/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) under section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to non-payment of advance tax. The assessee argued that he had paid advance tax and self-assessment tax, which the CIT(A) did not consider. Additionally, the assessee contested the additions made by the Income Tax Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and other related issues. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and remanded the case for a fresh decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30083 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA AGIWAL
• Section: 144; 250; 208; 44AD

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2143/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd, Opp. Amol Petrol Pumb, Basmath Road, Karegaon, Parbhani – 431902. PAN: ANOPK6751F V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward Hingoli, Parbhani, Maharashtra. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rajendra Agiwal– AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastava – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 07/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18; dated 14.08.2024, emanating from assessment order under section 144 of the Act, dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2143/PUN/2024 2 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-admitted u/s 249(4) of the Act. 2. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact and law that the liability to pay advance tax as per section 208 arises only when the tax payable is Rs.10,000 and more. 3. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal view that the appellant is not liable for payment of advance tax but for shortfall is Rs.285 and erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits. 4. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.AO erred in making the addition of Rs.6,20,000 on account of cash deposited in Bank during the period 08.11.2016 to 19.11.2016 demonetisation period holding it as unexplained cash deposit. 5. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the ld.AO erred in making the addition and erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in carrying on business of grading and regrading and packing of Cashew Kernels. The income is computed u/s 44AD and the cash deposited is from business source. 6. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.AO erred in not appreciating that the appellant is liable for sales tax. He has paid sales tax and furnished the details of sales, purchase etc. When the other financial results are accepted, the cash deposited cannot be held as unexplained. 7. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.AO erred in making estimated addition @8% of turnover of Rs.1,05,23,217 which comes to Rs.8,41,857 over and above the cash deposited in bank during the period 08.11.2016 to 19.11.2016. 8. In the facts circumstances of the case and in law the ld.AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC and u/s.270A. ITA No.2143/PUN/2024 3 9. The appellant seeks any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, omit and delete all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both parties and perused the records. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that assessee has not paid advance tax, hence assessee’s appeal was dismissed under section 249(4) of the Act. 2.1 On perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee, it is observed that assessee had paid advance tax of Rs.4,000/- on 30.12.2016 and self-assessment tax of Rs.1,750/- on 07.08.2017. Copies of the challans are on record. Advance tax is the tax payable on the estimated total income of the relevant financial year, which is chargeable to tax in the assessment year but is payable in that very financial year. A catena of decisions by various Hon’ble High Courts has reiterated that the advance tax payable under chapter XVII is based on an estimate of the total income of the assessee. An estimate always has an element of guess work. There could be various reasons due to which an estimate may be faulty and inaccurate which is why, there is a ITA No.2143/PUN/2024 4 provision for payment of interest on deficient or excess payment of advance tax when there is variation between advance tax paid and actual liability to tax. 2.2 In this case, admittedly, assessee has not filed Return of Income. Assessment Order was passed under section 144 of the Act on 27.12.2019. Assessee’s case falls under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The proviso to section 249(4) also gives a discretion to the ld.Commissioner of Tax(Appeal) to admit the appeal even if advance tax is not paid when assessee is able to show sufficient reason. In this case, admittedly assessee is a Senior Citizen. During the period, assessee was suffering from illness. Assessee had estimated his tax liability and paid the advance tax as per his estimation. It is a fact that there is a shortfall of advance tax, but estimations may go wrong. In this case, it has been submitted by the ld.AR that the shortfall advance tax has been paid by the assessee subsequently. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a lenient view needs to be taken as Assessee is a Senior Citizen. Therefore, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee ITA No.2143/PUN/2024 5 shall provide necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 10th Jan, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "