आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण , हैदराबाद पीठ में

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 228/Hyd/2024 ( /Assessment Year: 2017-18)

नििाारण वर्ा

Janakiram Dammalapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, P.O. Bhadrachalam, Ward-1, Khammam Kothagudem [PAN No. ARJPD0079L]

/Appellant /Respondent अपीलार्थी प्रत् यर्थी

/Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR नििााररती द्वारा

(Appeared through virtual mode)

/Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR राजस् व द्वारा

/Date of hearing: 06/05/2024 सुिवाई की तारीख घोर्णा की तारीख /Pronouncement on: 09/05/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of Janakiram Dammalapati (‘the assessee’), against the order dated 23/02/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), relating to the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee, reads as under:

1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant;

2) The learned CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal on the ground that the provisions of Sec.249(4)(b) are applicable ;

3) The learned CIT (A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merit;

4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have provided an opportunity before disposing the appeal by ========

249(4)(a) / 249(4)(b) of the Act.

5) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;

3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that the assessee is an individual and he did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. As per information available in the ITS/ITBA, Ld.AO found that the assessee has made high value transactions for the year under consideration and, therefore, issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), requiring the assessee to file the return of income. Since no return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, Ld.AO issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act on different dates to the assessee, seeking information regarding these high value transactions, however, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld.AO.

3.1. Since the assessee did not furnish the details sought and even did not file his return of income for the year under consideration, the Ld.AO on the basis of high value transactions available in the ITS/ITBA made assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, by treating the cash deposits in current account of Rs. 1,30,60,000/-, receipt on account of Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 2,72,329/- and 8% of contractual receipts to the tune of Rs. 48,64,101/- i.e., Rs. 3,89,128/- as the income of the assessee and finally assessed the total income at Rs. 1,37,21,460/-, by order dated

12/03/2022.

4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, contending that the assessee has neither paid the requisite amount of advance tax which was payable on or before filing the appeal u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act nor the assessee has made any request for exemption from payment of such advance tax in accordance with the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced, as under:

“…

2.8. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable. Moreover, the appellant has also not made an application as per the Proviso to Section 249(4). As the applicable advance tax has not been paid by the appellant before filing of the present appeal and the appellant has not made application as per the proviso, the present appeal shall not be admitted. In the present appeal, it is held that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act and hence the appeal is no