LAXMI BABU DEBNATH ,PUNE V. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

ITA 536/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the assessee, Laxmi Babu Debnath, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee had not filed a valid return of income and had not paid the required advance tax. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the returns and paid the taxes as required under Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed that the appeals be admitted and heard on their merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396607 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHAN THIRMANPALLIL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV THAKKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपी ठपुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune. PAN: ACYPD2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rajiv Thakkar – AR Revenue by Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeal filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. These Two Appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We treat appeal in ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 [A] 2 ITA No.535/PUN/2025 as “lead case”. The Assessee in ITA No.535/PUN/2025 has raised the following grounds of appeal “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority without considering the submissions already made is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The order passed be set aside. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of law, it be held that the order passed by the Ld. A.O. without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act is invalid and without jurisdiction. Addition made in pursuance of such assessment order is improper, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The addition so made be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect 3. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 to 2 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of law, it be held that assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, is in violation of the express instructions issued by CBDT circular. The assessment order be quashed. The addition made in pursuance of such an order be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 to 3 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of law, it be held that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. under section 144 is invalid. The assessment order be quashed. Addition made in pursuance of such assessment order be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 5. Without prejudice to ground Nos. 1 to 4 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, it be held that the the Ld. A.O. erred in not allowing the interest expense of Rs.15,96,870/- against the income earned on premature surrender of pension policy as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. The addition so made be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 [A] 3 ITA No.535/PUN/2025 Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the Assessee for A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.2013-14 vide separate orders dated 28.12.2024 and 27.01.2025. However, the Paragraph is identical in both the appeal orders. The relevant paragraph of ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced as under : “6. Since the appellant has not filed valid return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.” 2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order u/s.148 of the Act, on the ground that Assessee has not paid the taxes. 2.2 The Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced here as under : 249. (1) ………….. (4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,— (a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 [A] 4 (b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.” 2.3 Thus, Section 249(4) envisages two situations. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not filed Return of Income and not paid the taxes, therefore, invoked section 249(4)(b) of the Act. However, the Assessee has filed Return of Income for A.Y.2012-13 on 05.12.2019 electronically and paid the Tax of Rs.33,180/-. Similarly, for A.Y.2013-14 Assessee had filed Return of Income electronically on 05.12.2019 and paid the Tax of Rs.55,354/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has also started the Computation of Income with Income shown as per Return of Income. The relevant part of the Assessment Order is reproduced here as under : COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME Income shown as per ROI .. Rs.4,77,650/- Add: Income from other sources… Rs.33,98,231/- Less: Deduction allowed … Rs.30,00,000/- Income from other sources u/s.57 Rs.3,98,231/- Total assessed Income Rs.8,75,881/- ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 [A] 5 2.4 Thus, Assessee had filed Return of Income and paid the taxes on the total income shown in the Return of Income. Therefore, Assessee’s case falls under the Section 249(4)(a) of the Act. Thus, ld.CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.2013-14 and adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits. Hence, the appeal is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The Assessee shall be provided opportunity of being heard. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 2.5 Since we have set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, we do not intend to comment on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds are left open for adjudication by ld.CIT(A). 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.536/PUN/2025 4. Since we have set-aside the order for A.Y.2012-13 to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, as the facts are identical we also ITA Nos.535 & 536/PUN/2025 [A] 6 set-aside this current appeal in order for A.Y.2013-14 to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DIPAK P.RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26 May, 2025/ 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, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “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. "