2015 (3) TMI 1259 - AT - Income Tax

Default under Section 249(4)(a) - as at the time of filing of appeal before the CIT(A) assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by him - Held that - The judgement of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Satish Kumar Singh 2012 (4) TMI 213 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT clearly covers the controversy wherein held that after the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on account of a default under Section 249(4)(a) of the Act if the assessee pays the admitted tax the CIT(A) ought to recall the earlier order dismissing the appeal in-limine and to consider the appeal on merits. Considering the above we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) with directions to consider the plea of the assessee of having paid the tax due on the returned income and upon his being satisfied that the requirement of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act has been complied with he shall admit and dispose-off the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the CIT(A) shall allow a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and thereafter he shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) under Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Legality of search and seizure operations.
5. Transfer of case jurisdiction.
6. Legality of trading in Iron Ore.
7. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals were delayed by 76 days. The assessee argued that the delay was due to financial difficulties resulting from the ban on iron ore trading since 2012, which led to the attachment of his income by the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and cited several judgments, including Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and others, and Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, which support a pragmatic approach towards condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties.

2. Dismissal of Appeals by CIT(A) under Section 249(4)(a):
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals because the assessee had not paid the taxes due on the returned income before filing the appeals, as required under Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal observed that although the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals initially, the assessee had subsequently paid the due taxes. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment in CIT-III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should recall the dismissal order and adjudicate the appeals on merits once the taxes are paid.

3. Validity of Assessment under Section 153A:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment under Section 153A, arguing that the search was illegal and initiated against a defunct entity. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but indicated that the CIT(A) should consider it upon remand.

4. Legality of Search and Seizure Operations:
The assessee contended that the search and seizure operations were illegal as they were initiated against a defunct entity. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied that it should be considered by the CIT(A) upon remand.

5. Transfer of Case Jurisdiction:
The assessee argued that the transfer of the case from Hospet to Belgaum was illegal as the reasons for the transfer were not communicated. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail, suggesting it should be reviewed by the CIT(A) upon remand.

6. Legality of Trading in Iron Ore:
The authorities below had held that trading in iron ore was illegal. The assessee argued that even if the business was illegal, only the net profit should be assessed, not the entire sale proceeds. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue but indicated that it should be addressed by the CIT(A) upon remand.

7. Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee contested the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing that the interest should be calculated only after giving credit for taxes paid in the original assessment. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue but implied it should be considered by the CIT(A) upon remand.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeals on merits after verifying that the assessee had paid the due taxes. The CIT(A) was instructed to allow a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision applied to all the appeals for the assessment years 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12.