M. Abdul Zahid., Bangalore V. The Asst. Comm. Of Income-Tax. Central Circle-2, Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 316/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 31624114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATH I PUJAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 316 TO 320 /PNJ/2014 (A.Y S . : 200 5 - 0 6 , 2007 - 08 , 2008 - 09 , 2009 - 10 , 2011 - 12 ) M. ABDUL ZAHID, PROP. SMSK MINERAL TRADING CO., NO. 310/A, SMSK PLAZA, HOSPET . VS. A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM. PAN NO. AAEPZ 4485 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN - CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJUNATH I. PUJAR - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18 / 0 3 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 4 / 0 3 /201 5 . O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , J .M TH E S E APPEAL S BY THE SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) - VI , BANGALORE DATED 2 8 /0 2 /201 4 FOR THE A.Y S . 200 5 - 0 6 , 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 , 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 . SINCE , THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 76 DAYS IN FILING ALL THESE APPEALS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IRON ORE , WHICH HAS BEEN BANNED SINCE 2012 ONWARDS AND T HEREAFTER , HE WAS NOT CARRYING THE BUSINESS. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS INSTITUTED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) - VI , BANGALORE FOR ALL THE A.YS. 2005 - 06, 2007 - 08 , 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 , WHICH WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(4)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT', FOR SHORT) AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON 28/04/2012 . THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT ON OR BEFORE 03/06/2014. AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INIT I ATED AND ALL HIS INCOME HAS BEEN ATTACHED BY THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE HAD NO FUND TO PAY THE TAXES. THEREFORE , THERE WAS A D EL AY OF 76 DAYS IN INSTITUTING THE APPEALS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND DELAY WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL, WILFUL NOR DELIBERATE , THEREFORE , DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND APPEALS MAY BE DISPOSED OF ON MERITS. 3. LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND PRAYED FOR ITS REJECTION. 3 4 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO VERIFIED THE PROVISIONAL BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 AND FROM THIS PROVISIONAL BALANCE SHEET, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUFFICIENT FUND, THEREFORE HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PAY THE TAXES. ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAU S E TO FILE THE SE APPEAL S IN DELAY. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, IN OUR OPINION, INSTANCES WHERE DELAY WAS CAUSED DUE TO THE WRONG ADVICE OR BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE WAS BONA FIDE PURSUING A REMEDY WHICH DID NOT LIE ARE HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WE NOTED, HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS, 167 ITR 47 1 THAT COURTS SHOULD HAVE A PRAGMATIC APPROACH WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE CASE OF BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, 7 SCC 123 EVEN THE DELAY OF 883 DAYS WAS CONDONED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAFIQ & ANR. VS. MUNSHIKAK & ANR., AIR 1 981 SC 1400 HAS OBSERVED THAT WE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO AN INNOCENT PARTY SUFFERING INJUSTICE MERELY BECAUSE HIS CHOSEN ADVOCATE DEFAULTED. IN OUR OPINION, RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, RATHER THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH MALIK VS. CIT , 325 ITR 243 HAS HELD AS UNDER : - 4 RULES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, RATH ER THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE COURTS DISCRETION SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF THE HEARING AND NOT TO SHUT OUT HEARING. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF WEST BE NGAL V. ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITIES [1972] AIR 1972 SC 749 HAS HELD THAT IF A PARTY HAD ACTED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER ON WRONG ADVICE GIVEN BY HIS LOCAL ADVISOR HE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE SO AS TO DISENTITLE THE PARTY TO PLEAD SUFFICIEN T CAUSE UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963. IT ALSO HELD THAT THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION FOR WANT OF BONA FIDES IS IMPUTABLE TO A PARTY. WE, ACCORDINGLY , CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 5. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM I.T.A.NO. 316/PNJ/2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS NON - MAINTAINAB LE U/S.249[4][A] OF THE ACT, WHEN IN HER OPINION IT WAS NOT TO BE ADMITTED AND THUS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXES ON THE INCOME REPORTED WAS NOT PAID BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS DISMISSED ONLY AFTER ITS ADMISSION AND NOT O THERWISE . 2.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249[4][A] OF THE ACT, WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AT ALL ON OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE INCOME ADMITTED FOR VARIOUS YEARS AND THE LEARNED CIT[ A] OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT OF TAX IN I SOLATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW INSTEAD OF HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IF THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE IT SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF AT ALL EVEN BY DISMISSAL, AS THERE WAS NO POWER TO ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR DISPOSAL AND THE 5 IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY DISMISSAL AS NON - MAINTAINABLE U/S.249[4][A] OF THE ACT, IS ERRONEOUS AND REQUIRES TO BE SET - ASIDE AND IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN PAYMENT THE ADMITTED TAXES NOW ON 03/09/2014, IS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND T HE APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE LEARNED CIT[A] MAY BE DIRECTED FOR DISPOSING THIS APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2.2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE ALLOWED OR DISMISSED ONLY AFTER ADMISSION AND NOT OTHERWISE AND THE LEARNED CIT[A] HAS NO POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL U/S.249[4][A] OF THE ACT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WITHOUT ADMISSION AND FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT FIL ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A SIMULTANEOUSLY ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2010 - 11, WHICH WERE ALSO SIMILARLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF TH E ACT AND IN RESPECT OF THOSE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO REFUND ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOME REPORTED IN THE RETURNS, WHICH WOULD COVER THE TAX PAYABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WARRANTING NO FURTHER PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE VERY VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A AND FURTHER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE WERE ATTACHMENTS BY THE INC OME - TAX DEPARTMENT AND BUSINESS HAVING COMING TO A GRINDING HALT, THERE WERE NO FUNDS TO PAY SEPARATELY THE TAX TAKING A TECHNICAL AND PEDANTIC VIEW IN ISOLATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNED C I T[A] OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE TAXES ON THE REPORTED INCOME HAVE BEEN DULY PAID ON THE OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE APPEALS HAVE BEE N FILED AND OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OFF THE SAME ON MERITS AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THEM AS NON - MAINTAINABLE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. U/S.143[3] RWS 153A OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ON 22/02/2011 WAS ILLEGAL AS THERE WAS NO SEARCH INITIATED AGAINST HIM AND THE SEARCH INITIATED AND WARRANT ISSUED WAS IN CONNECTION WITH SEARCH INITIATED AGAINST THE DEFUNCT ENTITY M.A.ZAHID AND 6 M.A.NAMEEM, WHICH WAS LEGALLY NOT IN EXISTENCE AND FURTHER, THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IS ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132[1][A], [B] AND [C] OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PARITY OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJITH JAIN REPORTED IN 260 ITR 80 [SC] AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.RAMAIAH REPORTED IN 339 ITR 210 [KAR], THERE COULD NOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE ACT, AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 5. SINCE THERE WAS NO SEARCH AGAINST THE APPELLANT, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE ACT AND NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED AGAINST THE PERSON SEARCHED TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT, AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 6. WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT THE JURISDICTION U/S.153A OF THE ACT IS VALIDLY ASSUMED, THE TRANSFER OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE FROM HOSPET TO BELGAUM, IS ILLEGAL, AS THE REASON FOR TRANSFER HAVE NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 127 OF THE I.T.ACT AND AS PER THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJANTHA INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 102 ITR 281 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S./153A IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TRADING IN IRON ORE IS AN ILLEGAL BUSINESS, WHICH IS ON ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF THE POSITION OF LAW OBTAINING UNDER MINES & MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1957 UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 7 .1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT VIOLATED ANY STATE LAW OR LAW ENACTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE WITHOUT CONCEDING THE LAW MADE BY THE STATE AS WELL AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WERE VIOLATED THEN, THE ENTIRE BUSINESS BEING ILLEGAL, THE NET PROFIT FROM ILLEGAL BUSINESS IS LIABLE FOR ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PRODU CTS, WHICH ALSO WOULD BE AN ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE ENACTMENT, THUS, THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING THE URD PURCHASES OF RS.1,09,38,9767 - REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WITH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S. 234 - A, 234 - B AND 234 - C OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE 7 FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN AND THE EXTENT OF LIABILITY COULD BE ONLY U/S.234A[3] AND U/S.234B[3] ALONE IS CHARGEABLE, WHICH IS TO BE CHARGED AFTER GIVING CREDI T TO TAXES PAID IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE EXPIRY OF TIME UNDER THE NOTICE TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF INTEREST U/S.234A[3] AND IN THE CASE OF 234B[C] ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT PAYABLE ON THE SU M DETERMINED FROM THE DATE OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT TILL THE DATE OF RE - ASSESSMENT. 10. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 6. SHORT F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 22/02/2011 IN THE GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RETURN. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153 A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID DUE TAXES ON THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON THIS BASIS , LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(4)(A) SUPPORTED BY THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT PAY THE TAXES DUE ON THE RETURNED INCOME BEFORE FILING APPEAL U/S. 246A, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS PER PR O VI S IONS OF SEC. 249(4)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR, TAXES DUE ON RETURNED INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN PAID BEFORE FILING APPEAL AND THEREFO RE , APPEAL IN QUESTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 8 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE NOT ADMITTED AND FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 7. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE U S THAT WHEN ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL ON 26/04/2013 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE ADMITTED TAX A PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(4)( A) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE DUE TAXES ON RETURNED INCOME BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL U/S. 246A OF THE ACT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE TAXES TILL FEBRUARY, 2014 AS HE FACED FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND HIS PROPERTY IS ATTACHED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, ON 10/02/2014, ASSESSEE HAS PAID DUE AMOUNT OF TAX BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE RECORD AND HAS GIVEN CERTIFICATE THAT ASS ESSEE HAS PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 10/02/2014 , COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH. LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.V. HARISH IN ITA NO. 330/2014 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISS I ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT DEPOS I TING THE ADMITTED TAX AS REQUIRED U/S. 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE FIRST APPELLATE HAS AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL . IN THE MEANTIME , 9 ASSESSEE PAID THE ADMITTED TAX . BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - III VS. K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH REPORTED IN (2012) 80 CCH 112 , THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . THEREFORE , MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 8. LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM PERUSAL OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT THAT UNLESS ASSESSEE PAYS THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM, THE CIT(A) IS NOT VESTED WITH ANY POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM AND THUS NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN - LIMINE . HOWEVER, THE POSITION SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THA T AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS PAID THE REQUISITE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO ENTERTAIN AND ADMIT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE SAID PRAYER ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR SETTING - ASIDE THE ORDER 10 OF THE CIT(A). ON THIS ASPECT, IN OUR VIEW, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUM AR SINGH (SUPRA) CLEARLY COVERS THE CONTROVERSY. AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF A DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE PAYS THE ADMITTED TAX, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO RECALL T HE EARLIER ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN - LIMINE AND TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 10 . CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET - ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND UPON HIS BEING SATISFIED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HE SHALL ADMIT AND DISPOSE - OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER HE SHALL PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. THE FACTS OF I.T.A.NO. 316/PNJ/2014 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF I.T.A.NOS. 317 TO 320/PNJ/2014. THEREFORE, OUR VIEW IN FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR ALL THE APPEALS I.E. I.T.A.NOS. 317 TO 320/PNJ/2014. 11 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 T H MARCH , 201 5 ). S D / - S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 4 T H MARCH , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE LD. CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI