2016 (2) TMI 740 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Mr. Ravella Ramakrishna Versus ACIT, Central Circle-5 Hyderabad
Non payment of court fee - requirements of Section 249( 4)(a) - Held that - We deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to verify the facts mentioned by assessee herein and if it is found that the cash seized during the course of search and also recovered thereafter, is sufficient to meet the tax liability for the above three years, the Ld. CIT(A) shall ente ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 84 - KERLA HIGH COURT
THE MALLAPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -III, KOCHI AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE)
Delay condonation application - delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) - Held that - On a consideration of the principles as laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT in the instant case, the 1st respondent has not considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant in accordance with the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 1st respondent, to restore the appeals, stay application and the delay condonation applications to file, an ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 1066 - ITAT HYDERABAD
AKR Construction Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non maintainability of appeal invoking the provisions of Section 249(4) - assessee had not paid the admitted taxes - Held that - As far as the order of CIT(A) in invoking the provisions of Section 249(4)(a), the same cannot be faulted as assessee had not remitted the admitted tax. However, assessee s contention that it has financial difficulty at that time for payment of tax was not examined by the CIT(A). - Now, assessee has remitted the admitted tax and furnished the challan in support of the same. We are of the opinion that assessee s appeal should be considered on merits. For this purpose, ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 951 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Satbarg Singh Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2 (3) , Chandigarh
Condonation of delay rejected - appeals have been filed late by almost 12 years and the reason is stated to be that the assessee was not keeping up good health, was in severe depression due to various issues and the lenders were asking for money. - Whether CIT (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh was right in holding that the appeals filed by the assessee were barred my limitation? - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has miserably failed to prove the sufficient cause to the effect that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible to file appeals b ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 288 - ITAT MUMBAI
Shankarlal P. Mali, Prop. Of Sundhamaa Enterprises and others Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income -Tax, (OSD I) Central Range 7
Dismissal of appeal as un-admitted - payment of tax before filing of the appeal - CIT(A) noticed that the taxes due on the income returned u/s 153A of the Act were not paid by the assessee on the date of filing of the appeal and as a consequence, he invoked the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act and dismissed the appeal - assessee pointed out that though the taxes due on the income returned were not paid by the assessee prior to the date of filing of appeal with the CIT(A) i.e. 27.01.2009 but the same were duly paid much before the CIT(A) passed the impugned order - Held that - the Mumbai ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 284 - ITAT GUWAHATI
Bichitra Pegu Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Guwahati
Condition of payment of tax before filing of an appeal - Stay - Rejection of appeals on the ground of maintainability in the light of section 249(4) - Held that - The assessee has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 249(4) of the Act. In the instant case, ld CIT(A) has categorically observed that from the perusal of assessment order and calculation of tax there was no valuable assets seized in the hands of the appellant or even belonging in the name of the appellant. In fact, provision u/s. 158BD was initiated in this case. Neither any assets belonging in the appellant h ....... - .......
2014 (12) TMI 217 - ITAT KOLKATA
Dr. Murari Mohan Kokey Versus Income-tax Officer, Wd-55(3), Kolkata
Appeal dismissed as being time barred u/s 249 - violation of principles of natural justice Admission of appeal - Held that - It is immaterial to discuss, whether assessment order was served through affixture validly or not but the assessee obtained the copy of assessment order from the AO for the first time and filed appeal within the limitation period after obtaining the assessment order - the assessee s wife was under treatment for cancer at Christian Medical College, Vellore during this period of delay - the cause is reasonable for filing of appeal belatedly i.e. after expiry of limitation ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 344 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy CIT Central Circle-9, Hyderabad
Maintainability of appeal u/s 249(4) Admission of appeal - Payment of Admitted tax made or not Held that - 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 - 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 - sub-section (4) of section 249 pertains to those assessees who have defaulted in payment of tax or did not file the return - as per section 249(4) of the Act no appeal before CIT(A ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 760 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus S. Duraipandi & S. Thalavaipandian (AOP) C/o. M/s. CNGSN & Associates
Appeal before CIT(A) - Non-compliance of Section 249(4)(a) or not - The pre-condition for filing the appeals is requirement of deposit of admitted tax due, which apparently the assessee had deposited with a delay of 534 days. - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Held that - Taking note of the nature of business of the assessee and the financial hardship expressed by the assessee, tribunal allowed the assessee to pay the tax due on account of which delay occasioned later on - Revenue contended that the delay has not been properly explained and only on that reason the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Saiyana Warehouse (P) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Rejection in condonation of delay u/s 249(3) - Delay of three years two months and three days Continuous perusal of appeal before CIT(A) as well as Tribunal on same issues for earlier assessment years - Held that - For the AYs 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the assessee has been diligently pursuing the matter before the higher forum and has succeeded in getting a decision in its favour, holding that income from letting out of warehouses is business income - when reopening of assessment was done, the assessee had made a specific request to the AO to rectify the original assessment order in ....... - .......
2014 (7) TMI 305 - ITAT MUMBAI
M/s. Hargovinddas & Sons Versus ITO-25(2) (1), Mumbai
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Appeal against the order u/s 154 rejected by the CIT(A) Claim on inflated purchase Held that - The assessee may have a good case on merits, it is not a case of any mistake apparent on the record - a mistake is apparent on the record if no external help either on fact or in law is required to detect such mistake - If the mistakes require investigation into facts or determination of law or discussion of debatable points are involved or two opinions are possible on the issue then such pointed mistakes cannot be said to be mistakes apparent on record which can be ....... - .......
2014 (7) TMI 299 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Ragamala Finance Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad
Validity of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act non service of notice u/s 148 to the correct person - Held that - Since assessee s Managing Director has responded to the notices, it cannot be considered at this point of time that notice was not served on the correct person. Generally in most of the proceedings, Authorised Representatives or Accountants regularly appear before the authorities claiming that they represent the company/ assessee. Even before this Forum also many of the Counsels file their Power of Attorney or Vakalat stating to be representing the assessee. These are accepted in good ....... - .......
2014 (7) TMI 129 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Kobhashi Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax
Condonation of delay for filing an appeal before CIT(A) - illness of MD - Delay and defect in memos Penalty u/s 271 - Held that - The assessee has not only explained the cause of delay but has also submitted evidence to substantiate the claim - The evidence on record show that the MD was keeping ill intermittently - It is not necessary that only when a person is immobile or bedridden he would not be able to attend to his day to day activities - Even when a person is afflicted with illness quite intermittently, it not only takes a toll on him physically but also mentally - It so much preoccupie ....... - .......
2014 (5) TMI 385 - ITAT HYDERABAD
The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad Versus M/s. Sunder Steels Ltd.
Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules - Treatment of income receivable Income from letting out of property - Whether the lease rental income received by the assessee is to be assessed under the head Business or under the head Income from Other Sources Held that - There is no merit in the Revenue contention as the action of the AO in excluding income from business and assessing the same under the head Other Sources is not proper the order of the CIT(A) is upheld that income has to be considered as business income - whether the income was treated as business income or inco ....... - .......
2014 (4) TMI 552 - ITAT HYDERABAD
N. Subba Reddy, Hyderabad Versus Income-tax Officer
Non-consideration of Additional evidences Held that - When the appeal came for hearing before the CIT(A) on 09/01/2014 and the order was passed by the CIT(A) on 17/01/2014 - the assessee has filed certain evidences before the CIT(A) on 5/02/2014 and the CIT(A) did not get an occasion to consider the same as he has passed the order prior to that on 17/01/2014 - the evidences filed before the CIT(A) are very important in deciding the appeal - Since the assessee has not filed these evidences before the AO, the AO had no occasion t ....... - .......