9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had no taxable income for year under appeal and his income was only agricultural income and receipts from sale proceeds sale of agricultural land was exempted income under Act and, therefore, there was no obligation to pay advance tax under section 208. The Tribunal held that Commissioner (Appeals) should have admitted appeal for adjudication on merits, and amount of advance tax payable by assessee for purpose of presenting appeal, as per provisions of section 249(4)(b), should be taken as nil. Where assessee had not filed his return of income as he had no taxable income, Commissioner (Appeals) could not have held that he had failed to comply with statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In the case of T. Govindappa Setty [ 1997 (6) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] the High Court held that where petitioner assessee disputed liability on ground that he could not have been assessed as HUF as on date of filing return and on date of assessment there was no HUF in existence, right guaranteed to petitioner to prefer an appeal could not be taken away under section 249(4) by taking view that petitioner had failed to pay tax due on income shown in return filed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us rendering the assessment order non-est and bad in law. 6. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271F of the Act. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Ld. Assessing Officer received informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable of _34,54,113/- by the Ld. Assessing Officer, including interest for delayed payment of advance tax. Further, in Column 9 of Form No. 35, which pertains to whether an amount equal to the advance tax was paid, the same was marked NA by the assessee. Further, the assessee failed to provide any evidence of having paid the advance tax as required under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act on sale of immovable property. Moreover, The assessee also did not file any application seeking exemption from the requirement to pay advance tax under Proviso to Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) further observed that the assessee s tax payment record showed that only a sum of _1,990/- was paid as taxes, which is far below the required advance tax amount of _31,08,701/-, being 90% of the disputed demand. Despite the appellant's incorrect marking of NA in column 9 of Form 35, it was evident that the required advance tax had not been paid before filing of appeal. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that since the advance tax was not paid as required under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal could not be admitted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view, looking into the instant facts, the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that for the purpose of admission of appeal, the assessee was under obligation to pay advance tax on the entire disputed demand relating to sale of agricultural land (which was held to be non-agricultural land for the purpose of computation of capital gains tax by the assessing officer). In the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the case of the assessee is that the land in question was always an agricultural land and there was no obligation on the assessee to pay any taxes on such sale of land in terms of section 2(14) of the Act. In the case of Balwinder Singh v. ITO 163 taxmann.com 599 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Assessee, an agriculturist, derived agricultural income and sale proceeds on sale of agricultural lands against registered sale deeds. It had also deposited certain amount of cash in its bank account. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of total deposits including cash deposits with respect to sale of land and advance received. The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to admit appeal for hearing for non-payment of advance tax as per provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
