Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss an Appeal 2024 (6) TMI 238 - ITAT RAIPUR - AT

Analysis of ITAT Judgment on Dismissal of Appeal Due to Non-Payment of Advance Tax Reported as: 2024 (6) TMI 238 - ITAT RAIPUR Introduction This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a judgment delivered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the dismissal of an appeal due to non-payment of advance tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The judgment addresses a crucial issue regarding the maintainability of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] when the assessee has not filed a return of income and has not paid an amount equal to the advance tax payable. Arguments Presented The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by invoking Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which requires payment of an amount equal to the advance tax payable when no return of income has been filed. The assessee argued that since they had no taxable income for the assessment year in question, there was no obligation to compute or pay any advance tax u/ss 208 and 209 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee could not be held in default for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee further contended that the fact of having no taxable income was duly brought to the notice of the CIT(A) in the Statement of Facts filed along with the appeal. The assessee relied on several judicial pronouncements to support their argument. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Discussions and Findings of the Tribunal The ITAT acknowledged that Section 249(4)(b) of the Act requires an assessee who has not filed a return of income to pay an amount equal to the advance tax payable for the appeal to be maintainable before the CIT(A). However, the ITAT observed that this statutory requirement would be triggered only when an obligation was cast upon the assessee to pay advance tax. The ITAT agreed with the assessee's contention that, in the absence of any taxable income, no obligation was cast upon the assessee to compute or pay advance tax u/ss 208 and 209 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The ITAT relied on the orders of the ITAT, Bengaluru, in the case of Shri Shamanna Reddy Versus ITO, Ward-4 (1) (3) , Bengaluru - 2024 (2) TMI 1389 - ITAT BANGALORE and the ITAT, Delhi, in the case of Vikram Singh Versus ITO, Ward-2 (5) , Noida - 2023 (3) TMI 90 - ITAT DELHI , which supported the assessee's contention. Analysis and Decision by the Court The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as the assessee had no obligation to compute or pay advance tax in the absence of any taxable income. The ITAT emphasized that the statutory requirement u/s 249(4)(b) would be triggered only when an obligation to pay advance tax existed. Keynote The judgment discussed the principle that the statutory requirement of paying an amount equal to the advance tax payable u/s 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , is applicable only when an obligation to compute and pay advance tax exists. If an assessee has no taxable income, there is no obligation to pay advance tax, and the condition u/s 249(4)(b) cannot be invoked to dismiss the appeal. Comprehensive Summary The ITAT's judgment clarified that the requirement of paying an amount equal to the advance tax payable u/s 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable only when an assessee has an obligation to compute and pay advance tax. If an assessee has no taxable income, there is no obligation to pay advance tax, and the CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) . The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The judgment upheld the principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted in a reasonable manner, considering the factual circumstances of each case. Full Text : 2024 (6) TMI 238 - ITAT RAIPUR