2011 (7) TMI 540 - AT - Income Tax

Advance tax - Applicability of provisions of section 249(4)(a) - Revenue submitted that the original return was filed on 2-12-2006 and a revised return was filed on 15-3-2007 - Held that - As the assessee submitted that he has paid tax due on the returned income and the said tax was adjusted against the outstanding recovery from State Bank of India & the revenie on other hand submitted that this fact needs verification so in the interest of justice, restore this matter to CIT(A) with a direction to decide the applicability of provisions of section 249(4)(a) as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Disallownace - Held that - As the appellant has not been able to controvert the findings given by the AO in the impugned assessment order with regard to various additions and disallowances made therein and which are challenged in the appeal - Except making written submissions on 3-10-2010, no corroborative evidence was placed before me by the learned AR during the course of hearing. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly made the impugned additions and disallowance totalling to Rs. 17,09,18,102 and no interference is required there in the findings given by the AO are based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the same are confirmed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Invoking provisions of section 249(4)(a) and 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Non-speaking order passed by the CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invoking provisions of section 249(4)(a) and 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act:

The appeals primarily questioned the application of section 249(4)(a) and 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which stipulate conditions for admitting an appeal. Section 249(4)(a) requires the assessee to have paid the tax due on the income returned at the time of filing the appeal, while section 249(4)(b) necessitates the payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable if no return has been filed.

In ITA No. 525/PN/2011, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal under section 249(4)(b) because the assessee had not paid the advance tax. The assessee claimed a loss for the year, arguing that the provisions were not applicable. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for verification of the loss and the applicability of section 249(4)(b).

Similar directions were given for ITA Nos. 526, 491, 530, and 531/PN/2011, where the facts were analogous, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for verification.

In ITA No. 527/PN/2011, the issue involved section 249(4)(a). The assessee claimed to have paid the tax before filing the return. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits if the tax was indeed paid.

For ITA Nos. 486, 487, 492, and 493/PN/2011, similar issues under section 249(4)(a) were raised. The Tribunal remitted these appeals back to the CIT(A) with directions to verify the tax payments and decide accordingly.

In ITA No. 528/PN/2011, the assessee argued that the tax had been paid and adjusted against an outstanding recovery. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify this claim and decide the appeal on merits.

Similarly, for ITA Nos. 488 and 489/PN/2011, the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for verification of tax payments and appropriate decisions.

2. Non-speaking order passed by the CIT(A):

In ITA No. 529/PN/2011, the assessee raised multiple grounds, including the non-speaking order passed by the CIT(A), which was contrary to section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) had confirmed the ex parte assessment without adequate reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order, violating section 250(6) and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to provide a detailed, reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

For ITA No. 532/PN/2011, similar issues of non-speaking orders were raised. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with similar directions to pass a speaking order.

General Observations:

The Tribunal emphasized that both the assessee and the revenue authorities must adhere to procedural fairness. The apathy of the assessee towards lower authorities was noted, and a cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for each appeal to be paid to the department. The Tribunal underscored the importance of providing adequate opportunities for hearing, which is fundamental to the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:

All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the verification of facts and compliance with procedural requirements by the CIT(A), and the imposition of costs on the assessee for their apathy towards the proceedings before the lower authorities.