Mrs. Musarath Naveed , Bangalore vs Assessee

ITA.451/Bang/2014 page - 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A No.451/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Mrs. Musarath Naveed, M/s. M. N. Steel Tubes, No.22, Sadar Patrappa Road, Bangalore 560 002 ..Appellant PAN : ABEPN4303L

v.

Income-tax Officer, Ward - 5 (2), Bangalore ..Respondent

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. P. Dhivahar, JCIT

Heard on : 03.06.2015 Pronounced on : 11.06.2015

ORDER

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

In this appeal filed by assessee, its grievance is that CIT (A)-II,

Bangalore, dismissed its appeal before him im limine for non-payment of

admitted tax.

02. Nobody made appearance on behalf of the assessee, but a written

submission has been filed. In its written submission, it is stated that it has been

taxed on an income which did not arise during the impugned assessment year.

ITA.451/Bang/2014 page - 2

It is also mentioned that assessment for impugned assessment year stood set

aside u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

03. Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the first appellate authority.

According to him, assessee having not paid admitted tax, the CIT (A) had

rightly not gone into the merits of the case.

04. We have perused the orders, carefully gone through the written

submissions and heard the Ld. DR. Original return was filed by the assessee

declaring income of Rs.84,09,790/-, on which due taxes were paid. Thereafter

notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee where upon, the assessee

filed another return in which income declared was Rs.1,32,28,860/-. The tax

payable on such amount was Rs.52,71,338/-. The tax that was paid was only

Rs.30,00,921/-. Hence admitted tax was not paid in full. CIT (A) in our

opinion, has rightly noted that the appeal was defective since the tax due on the

income returned by the assessee it was not paid. Though the assessee has stated

before the CIT (A) that the return filed pursuant to notice u/s.148 of the Act was

only a revised return, the CIT (A) has reproduced Section 148 of the Act and

concluded that a return of income included a return filed pursuant to notice

u/s.148 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that admitted tax having

not been paid, CIT (A) was justified in coming to a conclusion that the appeal

was defective and not maintainable as per Section.249(4)(a) of the Act. We do

not find any reason to interfere.

ITA.451/Bang/2014 page - 3

05. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th day of June, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(N. V. VASUDEVAN) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER