Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
The only requirement of s. 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income. There is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. The delay in filing an appeal after payment of SA tax can be condoned

(i) The only requirement of section 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income and there is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. Therefore, if an appeal is filed after making of payment, it cannot be said that the requirement of section 249(4) has not been complied with. The CIT(A) can use his discretionary power and admit the appeal if he is satisfied about the liquidity crunch or any other reasonable cause for non payment of taxes. Section 249(3) prescribes the CIT(A) may admit the appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. While sub section (3) of section 249 pertains to those assessees who have filed return and paid the tax but belatedly filed an appeal. On the other hand, sub-section (4) of section 249 pertains to those assessees who have defaulted in payment of tax or did not file the return.

(ii) Hence as per section 249(4) of the Act no appeal before CIT(A) should be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal, where a return has been filed by the assessee, tax due on the income returned has been paid. In this sub-section, there is a clause (b) which is in respect of a condition where no return at all has been filed by the assessee. A Proviso underneath the section also prescribes that the cases falling under the said clause (b), the CIT(A) can grant exemption from the operation of the said clause. An inference can be drawn on combined reading of both the sub-clauses of sub-section (4) of section 249 that in case of default of non-payment of tax an appeal is not to be admitted, but on removal of the defect of non-payment of tax an appeal deserves to be admitted and in one of the condition the assessee can be granted exemption by the CIT(A).

One comment on “Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
  1. Rajeev Kumar says:

    Please see Bombay High Court Judgment – Bharat Sekhsaria vs CIT ITA 257 of 2002.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top