Held, allowing the appeal, that the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are clear that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be admitted only when the assessee paid the advance tax where return of income has not been filed. The proviso to the section also prescribes that the assessee will get exemption from this clause if the application is made before the Commissioner (Appeals) for not filing return of income or paying advance tax. But in the present case in peculiar circumstances, the assessee had explained that the assessee herself had not obtained the property but her son had paid the amount for purchase of the property from his own funds. In fact, the assessee’s son was a joint owner of the property and for the sake of the conveyance deed, the stamp deed was lesser the assessee’s name has been utilised in the conveyance deed. The direct relation between the mother and son should have been considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the peculiar circumstances, the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act should have been pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the hearing which the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to do. Merely on the technical ground, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have been dismissed and in fact after seeing the merits of the case, the transaction was not doubted and the investment made by the son of the assessee was also not questioned by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed on the peculiar facts of the assessee’s case. The order could not be treated as precedent.(AY.2013-14)