The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi set aside the dismissal of the appeal stating noncompliance under Section 249(4)(b) on the ground of misconception of facts.
The assessee, Tulsi Das is a resident individual. Based on AIR information indicating that the assessee had purchased immovable property worth Rs.46,20,000 during the year under consideration, the assessing officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Alleging that the assessee did not comply with the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to comply with the assessment under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, to the best of his judgment.
While doing so, the AO added back an amount of Rs.46,20,000 as an unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
A.K. Kundra, the Counsel appearing for the assessee, and Om Parkash, the Departmental Representativeargued before the Tribunal.
Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member observed that “It is apparent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on the basis that for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Whereas, the material placed before me clearly indicates that for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 02.02.2010, declaring an income of Rs.1,90,040.
In fact, the return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment in case of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.11.2011, accepting the returned income. It is manifest, that the Commissioner (Appeals) has totally misconceived the facts while dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine by invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present appeal.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
