SPOUT SYNTHEITCS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 884/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4828 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KUMAR SINGH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE HONBLE HONBLE SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A ( M/S. SPOU T SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. 1006, KRISHNA APARTMENT 10 TH FLOOR, JUHU LANE ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ( M/S. SPOU T SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. 1006, KRISHNA APARTMENT 10 TH FLOOR, JUHU LANE ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ASSESSEE BY REVENUE BY DATE OF HEARING DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , HONBLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A I.T.A. NO.884 /MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011- 12) SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. 1006, KRISHNA APARTMENT FLOOR, JUHU LANE ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI -58 ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER R. NO. 214, AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AAKCS-5968-A APPELLANT ) : ( #$ RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO.885/ MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012- 13) SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. 1006, KRISHNA APARTMENT FLOOR, JUHU LANE ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI -58 ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER R. NO. 214, AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AAKCS-5968-A APPELLANT ) : ( #$ RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : CH. ARUN KUMAR SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 04/02/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/02/2019 ITA NOS.884-885/MUM/2017 M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S- 2011-11 & 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SINGH, JMAND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A M /MUM/2017 12) TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 RESPONDENT ) MUM/2017 13) TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 RESPONDENT ) CH. ARUN KUMAR SINGH - LD.DR PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR 12 & 2012- 13 CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROCEEDINGS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. LEFT WITH NO OPTION, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE- OFF THE SAME ON AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] WHO HAS RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER 2. BRIEFLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE BEING TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF VIDE ORDER DATED 20/03/2014 ON INCOME TAX OFFICER- 8(3)(2), MUMBAI [AO]. AT RS.61.61 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.4.76 LACS FILED BY TH TO PROVIDE REQUISITE INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED THE LD. AO TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 WHERE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS. IT ALSO TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.1,63,370/ M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS [AY] 20 13 CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED NEGLIGENT IN ATTENDING PROCEEDINGS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. LEFT WITH NO OPTION, WE OFF THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] WHO HAS RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER S. BRIEFLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ENTITY TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TEXTILES WAS ASSESSED FOR AY 2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 20/03/2014 ON BEST JUDGMENT BASIS U/S 144 8(3)(2), MUMBAI [AO]. THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.61.61 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.4.76 LACS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 30/09/2011. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE REQUISITE INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED THE LD. AO TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON BEST JUDGMENT BASIS AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 WHERE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO IT ALSO TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OF RS.1,63,370/ - ON RETURNED INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, IN ITA NOS.884-885/MUM/2017 M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S- 2011-11 & 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS [AY] 20 11- 13 CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE -OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E & BREVITY. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, REMAINED NEGLIGENT IN ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. LEFT WITH NO OPTION, WE THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] WHO HAS RELIED CORPORATE ENTITY STATED WAS ASSESSED FOR AY 2011 -12 BEST JUDGMENT BASIS U/S 144 BY LD. THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.61.61 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF E ASSESSEE ON 30/09/2011. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE REQUISITE INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEST JUDGMENT BASIS U/S 144. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -18, MUMBAI VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 WHERE IN THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO REMAND HAD NOT PAID SELF- ON RETURNED INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A), THE APPEA L BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT TO BE ADMITTED. DISMISSED IN LIMINE, BEFORE US ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE [AR], HAS PLACED ON RECORD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE FORTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN JUDI 4. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IT EMERGES THAT FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY REQUISITE INFORMATION / EVID ENCES HAS LED THE LD. AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT TAX AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. FROM PE RUSAL OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI RS.1,63,370/- ON 24/11/2016 VIDE LD. AR, IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN NO..332/2014 DATED 15/08/2014] SATISH KUMAR [2012 80CCH 112] PAID SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL RENDERED NO.1721/PN/2012 28/10/2013] RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF THESE DECISIONS, THE BENCH CONCURS WITH THE STAN D OF LD. AR THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS PAID THE SELF DEFECT , THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. OUR VIEW IS M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A), THE APPEA L BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT TO BE ADMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL GOT LIMINE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER BEFORE US ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE [AR], HAS PLACED ON RECORD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE FORTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IT EMERGES THAT FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY REQUISITE INFORMATION / EVID ENCES HAS LED THE LD. TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. FROM PE RUSAL OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI D SELF - ON 24/11/2016 VIDE C IN 02700412411201600003 LD. AR, IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN DCIT VS. D.V.HARISH [ITA NO..332/2014 DATED 15/08/2014] AFFIRMI NG ITS OWN VIEW TAKEN IN SATISH KUMAR [2012 80CCH 112] TO SUBMIT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSESSMENT TAX, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF RENDERED IN CHANDAK MOTILAL VS DCIT [ITA NO.1721/PN/2012 28/10/2013] WHICH HAS CONSIDERED THE CITED DECISIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THESE DECISIONS, THE BENCH CONCURS WITH THE STAN D OF LD. AR THAT E HAS PAID THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX , THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. OUR VIEW IS ITA NOS.884-885/MUM/2017 M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S- 2011-11 & 2012-13 TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A), THE APPEA L BEFORE FIRST ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL GOT AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE [AR], HAS PLACED ON RECORD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IT EMERGES THAT FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY REQUISITE INFORMATION / EVID ENCES HAS LED THE LD. TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. FROM PE RUSAL OF DOCUMENTS - ASSESSMENT TAX OF IN 02700412411201600003 . THE LD. AR, IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DCIT VS. D.V.HARISH [ITA NG ITS OWN VIEW TAKEN IN CIT VS TO SUBMIT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSESSMENT TAX, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF CHANDAK MOTILAL VS DCIT [ITA WHICH HAS CONSIDERED THE CITED DECISIONS AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THESE DECISIONS, THE BENCH CONCURS WITH THE STAN D OF LD. AR THAT ASSESSMENT TAX AND CURED THE , THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY CITED DECISION: - 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT THAT UNLESS ASSESSE E PAYS THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM, THE CIT(A) IS NOT VESTED WI TH ANY POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL BEF ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RET URNED BY HIM AND THUS NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMIS SING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN- LIMINE. HOWEVER, THE POSITION SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS PAID THE REQU ISITE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO E NTERTAIN ANDADMIT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE SAID PRAYER ON THE GROUND THA T PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR SETTI NG ON THIS ASPECT, IN OUR VIEW, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUM HONBLE HIGH COURT, AFTER THE DISMISSAL OFTHE APPEA L BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF A DEFAULT UNDER SECTION249(4)(A) OF THE ACT, IF THE A SSESSEE PAYS THE ADMITTED TAX, THECIT(A) OUGHT TO RECALL THE EA CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 10. CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGHCOURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FITAND PR OPER TO SET ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITHDIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE OF HAVING PAID THE TAXDUE ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND UPON HIS BEING SATISFIED THAT THEREQUIREMENT OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HE SHALL ADMIT AND DISPOSE- OFF THE APPEAL O A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING H EARD AND THEREAFTER HE SHALL PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, WE DIRECT THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER & ADJUDICA TE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER SATISFYING THAT THE SELF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME FAILING WHICH FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT ADJUDICATE AS PER LAW. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALL OWED IN TERMS OF THIS ORDER. 5. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS FOR AY 2012 APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN ASSESSMENT TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD C OPY OF CHALLAN M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY PUNE TRIBUNAL 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IT IS QUITECLEAR FROM PERUSAL OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT THAT UNLESS ASSESSE E PAYS THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM, THE CIT(A) IS NOT VESTED WI TH ANY POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL BEF ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RET URNED BY HIM AND THUS NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMIS SING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LIMINE. HOWEVER, THE POSITION SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS PAID THE REQU ISITE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO E NTERTAIN ANDADMIT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE SAID PRAYER ON THE T PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL, CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR SETTI NG - ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ON THIS ASPECT, IN OUR VIEW, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUM AR SINGH (SUPRA) CLEARLY COVERSTHE CONTROVERSY. AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, AFTER THE DISMISSAL OFTHE APPEA L BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF A DEFAULT UNDER SECTION249(4)(A) OF THE ACT, IF THE A SSESSEE PAYS THE ADMITTED TAX, THECIT(A) OUGHT TO RECALL THE EA RLIER ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEALIN CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 10. CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGHCOURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FITAND PR OPER TO SET CIT(A) WITHDIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE OF HAVING PAID THE TAXDUE ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND UPON HIS BEING SATISFIED THAT THEREQUIREMENT OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HE SHALL OFF THE APPEAL O N MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE CIT(A) SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING H EARD AND THEREAFTER HE SHALL PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, WE DIRECT D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER & ADJUDICA TE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER SATISFYING THAT THE SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME FAILING WHICH FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADJUDICATE AS PER LAW. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALL OWED IN TERMS OF THIS SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS FOR AY 2012 - 13, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD C OPY OF CHALLAN ITA NOS.884-885/MUM/2017 M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S- 2011-11 & 2012-13 PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE NS. IT IS QUITECLEAR FROM PERUSAL OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT THAT UNLESS ASSESSE E PAYS THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM, THE CIT(A) IS NOT VESTED WI TH ANY POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RET URNED BY HIM AND THUS NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMIS SING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LIMINE. HOWEVER, THE POSITION SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS PAID THE REQU ISITE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO E NTERTAIN ANDADMIT ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE SAID PRAYER ON THE T PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ON THIS ASPECT, IN OUR VIEW, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN AR SINGH (SUPRA) CLEARLY COVERSTHE CONTROVERSY. AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, AFTER THE DISMISSAL OFTHE APPEA L BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF A DEFAULT UNDER SECTION249(4)(A) OF THE ACT, IF THE A SSESSEE PAYS THE ADMITTED TAX, RLIER ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEALIN -LIMINE AND TO 10. CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGHCOURT IN THE CASE OF K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FITAND PR OPER TO SET -ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CIT(A) WITHDIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE OF HAVING PAID THE TAXDUE ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND UPON HIS BEING SATISFIED THAT THEREQUIREMENT OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HE SHALL N MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE CIT(A) SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING H EARD AND THEREAFTER HE SHALL RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, WE DIRECT D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER & ADJUDICA TE THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE Y SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADJUDICATE AS PER LAW. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALL OWED IN TERMS OF THIS 13, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES FOR WANT OF PAYMENT OF SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD C OPY OF CHALLAN EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SELF 06/02/2017 . FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING TAKING THE SAME VIEW, THE APPEAL ST SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWE D IN TERMS OF THIS ORDER. 6. BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF O UR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- (PAWAN SINGH ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. $$% / THE CIT(A) 4. $$% / CIT CONCERNED 5. & ''() $)* 6. ' +,- GUARD FILE M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. . FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI- MATERIA TAKING THE SAME VIEW, THE APPEAL ST AND RESTORED BACK TO LD. CIT WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWE D IN TERMS OF THIS BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF O UR ABOVE ORDER. ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH FEBRUARYS, 2019. SD/- ) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14.02.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / THE APPELLANT / THE RESPONDENT / THE CIT(A) CONCERNED $)* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ! ' !#$ ITA NOS.884-885/MUM/2017 M/S. SPOUT SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR S- 2011-11 & 2012-13 ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 3,32,000/- ON MATERIA THE SAME, AND RESTORED BACK TO LD. CIT WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWE D IN TERMS OF THIS BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF O UR ABOVE ORDER. FEBRUARYS, 2019. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ! / BY ORDER, !#$ (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI.