Sh Nirlep Singh, V. The Dy Commissioner of lncome tax,

ITA 861/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0025 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.861/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA NO.862/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 AND ITA NO.864/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI NIRLEP SINGH VS. THE D.C.I.T., # 4507-B, SECTOR 70, CIRCEL 6(1), MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: AWHPS0491E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH ALL DATED 14.7.201 4 WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY UNDER SECTIONS 271(1)(C), 221(1) R.W.S. 2 140A(3) AND 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. WE WILL REFER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN ITA NO.861/CHD/2014 AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THIS SHAL L APPLY TO OTHER TWO APPEALS MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ITA NO.861/CHD/2014 : 3. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT ADMIT T HE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM AND DISMISSED THE SAME IN-L IMINE FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U NDER SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT. ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE BE NCH, IT WAS STATED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT DUE TAXES HAVE N OT BEEN PAID EVEN TILL DATE. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE SEE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT FOR AN APPEAL TO BE ADMITTED B EFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249 OF TH E ACT TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : SECTION 249(4) IN THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1995 (4) NO APPEAL UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE ADMITTED UNLESS A T THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL,- (A) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM. 5. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS AN 3 ASSESSEE PAYS TAXES DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY H IM, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND HEREBY CONFIRMED THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH