9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 740 - AT - Income TaxNon payment of court fee - requirements of Section 249( 4)(a) - Held that - We deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to verify the facts mentioned by assessee herein and if it is found that the cash seized during the course of search and also recovered thereafter, is sufficient to meet the tax liability for the above three years, the Ld. CIT(A) shall entertain the appeals and the assessee shall file application for condonation of delay which shall be considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits.
Issues:
1. Payment of court fee under I.T. Rules for appeals. 2. Dismissal of appeals by Ld. CIT(A) for non-payment of admitted tax. 3. Adjustment of seized cash towards self-assessment tax. 4. Verification of facts by A.O. regarding seized and recovered cash. 5. Application of Section 249(4)(a) of the I.T. Act. Analysis: 1. The Registry raised an objection regarding the court fee payment for the assessee's appeals. The Ld. Counsel argued that as the appeals were dismissed in limini by Ld. CIT(A), the appeal fee payable was only &8377; 500, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal held the objection of the Registry as not maintainable based on previous judgments. 2. For the A.Y. 2007-08, where the income assessed matched the returned sum, the appeal was deemed infructuous. However, for other years, appeals were filed after a search operation leading to unaccounted investments being taxed. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to non-payment of admitted tax. 3. The Ld. Counsel provided evidence of seized cash exceeding the total admitted tax for the relevant years. Referring to a Tribunal decision, the counsel argued for adjusting the seized amount towards the tax liability and requested the appeals to be adjudicated on merits. 4. The Ld. D.R. suggested verifying the facts regarding the seized and recovered cash by the A.O. The Tribunal considered a similar case and directed the issue to be remitted to Ld. CIT(A) for verification and consideration of the appeals on merits. 5. Citing the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal emphasized that where the tax payable on the returned income is paid or sought to be adjusted from seized assets, the assessee cannot be denied a hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for the A.Ys. 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2009-10, treating them as allowed for statistical purposes, and dismissed the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 as infructuous.
|
