By K. B. Bhujle Advocate
fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Pramod Kumar Dang; 361 ITR 137 (Del):
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the asessee relying on the provisions of section 249(4)(a) on the ground that the assessee appellant has failed to pay admitted tax. The Tribunal found that Rs. 4.6 lakh seized from the assessee was lying with the Department. The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 4.6 lakh should be treated against the payment of due tax on the returned income and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The rationale behind section 249(4) is that where an assessee has filed a return, the tax which is admittedly payable by the assessee should be paid prior to the hearing of any appeal filed by the assessee. The rationale is very logical for the reason that no assessee can be heard in an appeal where the tax which is admittedly payable by the assessee is outstanding. It is to enforce payment of tax on the admitted income.
ii) When an assessee files the return of income then at least the tax which is payable on the returned income should be paid by the assessee. But where the assessee either has paid the tax on the returned income or sought adjustment admittedly lying with the Revenue towards the tax payable on the returned income, the assesee cannot be denied a hearing.
iii) The amount of Rs. 4.6 lakh belonging to the assessee which was admittedly available with the Department was far in excess of the amount of tax payable in terms of the returned income and even in excess of the demand of Rs. 2,15,926 created u/s. 143(1)(a). The assessee could not have been denied a hearing merely on the ground of non-payment of tax due on the returned income. Therefore, the requirements of section 249(4)(a) of the Act, were duly complied with.”
