SUNEETHA MARTHALA,KAVALI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

ITA 1195/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Suneetha Marthala, the appellant, who contested the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The CIT(A) had declined to entertain her appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 on the grounds that she failed to file her return of income and thus was not entitled to any exemption from paying advance tax. The appellant argued that as an agriculturist with no taxable income, the requirement to pay advance tax should be waived. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which could exempt her from paying advance tax, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and remanding the case for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29107 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINATH SADANALA
• Assessee Lawyers: M.A.RAHIM
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.1195/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Suneetha Marthala Kavali [PAN : BGVPM1116M] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Nellore अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍ यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri M.A.Rahim, AR रधजस्‍ व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 19/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: Aggrieved by the order dated 20/09/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [learned CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in the case of Suneetha Marthala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2014-15, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset, the learned AR brought to our notice that the learned CIT(A) while invoking the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), missed the proviso thereunder and thereby declined to entertain the appeal. Learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant failed to file the return of income and therefore, there is no entitlement to exemption and the assessee has to pay the amount equivalent to the advance tax. 3. Learned DR contended that in as much as the assessee was non cooperative with the proceedings all through, the authorities have no option, but to proceed ex-parte and the learned CIT(A) is correct from declining to exempt the assessee from paying advance tax under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. We have gone through the record in light of the submissions made on either side. By way of letter dated 18/09/2024, the assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that already she informed the authorities, by way of letter dated 22/12/2022 that she had no taxable income at all and she being an agriculturist, is unable to pay the requisite advance tax and in as much as she is ready to prove her claim that she has no taxable income, it would cause hardship to her, if the payment of advance tax is put as a condition for entertaining the appeal. In the impugned order, though the learned CIT(A) referred to the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the proviso missed the attention of the learned CIT(A), resulting in declining to entertain the appeal of dispensing with the requirement of payment of advance tax. 5. Having considered the matter as a whole taking holistic view, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case to exempt the assessee from payment of advance tax under the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act and with this view of the matter, we accept the contention of the assessee, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to reexamine the same and take a plausible view according to law after affording opportunity of being heard. Grounds are answered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 19/03/2025 L.Rama, SPS Copy forwarded to: 1. Ms.Suneetha Marthala, 11-31-36/A, Pullareddy Nagar, Kavali 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore 3. The Pr.CIT, Tirupathi 4. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. GUARD File TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, HYDERABAD "