Rakesh Jagannath Guta, Mumbai V. Income Tax Officer 12(5), Pune, Pune

ITA 797/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1675 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TANAJI S. SHELKE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.797/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rakesh Jagannath Gupta, C/o. Classic Products Pvt. Ltd., B-5, Saraf Kaskar Industrial Estate, S.V. Road, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400 102 Maharashtra PAN : APXPG0910P Vs. ITO, Ward-12(5), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.02.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual and no regular Return of Income was filed for the A.Y. 2012-13. Subsequently, on the receipt of information that the appellant made cash deposits in the Savings bank account maintained with Union Bank of India to the extent of Rs.17,77,680/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s.148 was issued to Assessee by : Shri Tanaji S. Shelke Revenue by : Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha Date of hearing : 10.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 10.06.2024 ITA No.797/PUN/2024 2 the appellant on 28.03.2019 after recording the reasons. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 nor the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The AO after calling for the information from the Union Bank of India had proceeded to complete the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 11.11.2019, made addition of cash deposits of Rs.17,77,680/- as unexplained money of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine invoking the provisions of section 294(4)(b) of the Act by holding that the appellant failed to pay advance tax. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. According to the appellant, there was no obligation to pay advance tax since there was no taxable income exceeding the maximum amount chargeable to tax. The appellant placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Late Smt. Rafat Ghani, rep. By L/R Smt. Farheen Ghani Vs. ACIT – ITA No.159/Hyd/2019, dt. 18.06.2021, copy placed at pages 106 to 110 of the paper book. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR supports the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A)/AO. 7. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, I find that the solitary issue in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for non payment of advance tax in terms of provisions of section 294(4)(b) of the Act. The provisions of sub-clause (b) of sub-section 4 of section 294 provides that no appeal shall be admitted by the CIT(A) unless the assessee discharges the advance tax liability in case no return ITA No.797/PUN/2024 3 of income is filed. The provisions of section 210 provides that an assessee is liable to pay advance tax whose estimated tax liability is Rs.10,000/- or more. In the present case, the material on record clearly shows that there is no taxable income on which the tax liability exceeds Rs.10,000/- on the estimated income, but for the addition made in the assessment. Therefore, the question of payment of advance tax does not arise. Thus, the CIT(A)/NFAC ought not to have invoked the provisions of section 294(4)(b) of the Act. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted to the file of CIT(A)/FAC to decide the issue in appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 10 th June, 2024. Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5 . गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.