9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of LD CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act when the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file any application to exempt him from payment of advance tax in the light of the fact that no advance tax is payable by him, instead a letter dated 18-08-2021 was filed mentioning that return of income is not filed as there was no taxable income. In the light of decisions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari [ 2024 (6) TMI 273 - ITAT PUNE] and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi [ 2024 (6) TMI 238 - ITAT RAIPUR] and case of Govidappa Setty [ 1997 (6) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIG H COURT] as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition was not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the appeal ought to have been adjudicated on merits. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, it is submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notice issued the A.O. in view of the fact that the notices were issued on the old address of the assessee who had shifted from there around the year 2008 and also in view of the fact that the assessee was critical and had undergone angioplasty during the relevant period and therefore, the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. for completing the asst. afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the above grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before us. 6. When the appeal was called on for hearing, the counsel of the assessee appeared virtually requested to adjourn the case. Since the issue in this appeal is covered by various decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we reject the adjournment application filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. 7. LD AR submitted before us that the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, is not correct. It was further submitted that the sole reason for dismissing the appeal of the assessee by LD CIT(A)/NFAC was non-payment in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. It was further clarified befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And it is apparent that even cost of acquisition of the house was not allowed by the AO, while calculating the capital gain income, which resulted in determination of unnecessary taxable income in the hands of the assessee. We find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in a summery manner without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case. It was the observation of LD CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act when the assessee was issued show cause to explain this point he did not chose to file any application to exempt him from payment of advance tax in the light of the fact that no advance tax is payable by him, instead a letter dated 18-08-202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
