TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which we find to be entirely factual. On the first issue as to whether the CIT (A) ought to have granted time to the assessee to pay the self assessment tax, is concerned, if we look at Sub Section 4 of Section 249 of the Act, it is made clear that unless and until, the assessee has paid the income tax due on the income returned by him, no appeal under Chapter XX will be admitted. The Statute does not neither give any discretion to the appellate authority to entertain an appeal nor extend the time for paying the self assessment tax, except in respect of cases falling under Clause b of Section 249 (4) in terms of proviso under the said Section. Though such a ground raised in the appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal, the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take in the original return of income filed in furnishing the revised computation of taxable total income before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal as a fresh/new claim to press for the right of appeal? 3. Whether the proceedings of the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be reckoned as continuation of assessment proceedings especially in the context of entertaining the revised computation of taxable total income to consider the tax imposable on the correct income? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in rejecting the additional/fresh claim made before them for entertaining the first appeal for want of evidences/details for supporting the revised computation of taxable total income filed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 4. For that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have granted time to the assessee to pay the self-assessment tax. 4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the assessee raised additional grounds contending that they had inadvertently offered an income of ₹ 82.37 Crores relating to inbuilt Revenue which was neither received nor accrued. The Tribunal upon considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee at the first instance as well as additional grounds, rejected the same by holding that the self ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
