T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 Pesco Beam Environmental Solutions Private Ltd, 136 Thodugudu Village, Sriperumbudhur 602105. .. Appellant Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer:- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 21.05.2020 made in I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2013 relating to Asst Year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent: Mr.R.Hemalatha, Standing Counsel 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 JUDGMENT [Order of Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] This appeal by assessee under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against order dated 21.05.2020 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2012 for assessment year 2012-13. appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether appeal filed before First Appellate Authority is maintainable in light of corrected / revised computation of taxable total income filed before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with pleading to admit fresh claim and for restoring first appeal for deciding issues on merits? 2. Whether provisions of Section 294(4) of Act is applicable even after establishing mistake in original return of income filed in furnishing revised computation of taxable total income before Income tax Appellate Tribunal as fresh/new claim to press for right of appeal? 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 3.Whether proceedings of second appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be reckoned as continuation of assessment proceedings especially in context of entertaining revised computation of taxable total income to consider tax imposable on correct income? 4. Whether Appellate Tribunal is correct in rejecting additional/fresh claim made before them for entertaining first appeal for want of evidences/details for supporting revised computation of taxable total income filed before them despite such details / evidences were part of their record in form of paper Book comprised of 271 pages, thereby establishing perversity in recording findings of facts? 2. We have elaborately heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for appellant / assessee and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel who accepts notice for respondent. 3. assessment for year under consideration namely Assessment Year 2012-13 was completed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 92 (C) (A) of Act by order dated 27.02.2016. Against certain 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 addition was made, assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai ('the CIT (A)' for brevity). appeal was not considered on merits and was dismissed by CIT (A) by order dated 31.07.2017 on ground that assessee has not paid self assessment tax which assessee had admitted before appellate authority. Aggrieved by same, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal. following four grounds were raised before Tribunal: Grounds of Appeal 1. For that order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of case to extent prejudicial to interest of appellant and is opposed to principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that order of Assessing officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing appeal as not maintainable. 4. For that considering facts and 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 circumstances of case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have granted time to assessee to pay self-assessment tax. 4. When appeal was taken up for hearing, assessee raised additional grounds contending that they had inadvertently offered income of Rs.82.37 Crores relating to inbuilt Revenue which was neither received nor accrued. Tribunal upon considering grounds of appeal raised by assessee at first instance as well as additional grounds, rejected same by holding that self assessment tax was admittedly not paid and there is no satisfactory evidence to substantiate assessee's plea that assessee has wrongly computed income. Aggrieved by such order, assessee is before us by way of this appeal. 5. We have referred to grounds of appeal raised before Tribunal at first instance and we find that challenge to order passed by CIT (A) was on ground that CIT (A) ought to have granted time to assessee to pay self assessment tax. When appeal was heard, additional grounds were raised which we find to be entirely factual. 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 On first issue as to whether CIT (A) ought to have granted time to assessee to pay self assessment tax, is concerned, if we look at Sub Section 4 of Section 249 of Act, it is made clear that unless and until, assessee has paid income tax due on income returned by him, no appeal under Chapter XX will be admitted. Statute does not neither give any discretion to appellate authority to entertain appeal nor extend time for paying self assessment tax, except in respect of cases falling under Clause b of Section 249 (4) in terms of proviso under said Section. 6. Though such ground raised in appeal memorandum filed before Tribunal, assessee appears to have been more interested in canvassing additional grounds with regard to offering sum of Rs.82.37 Crores relating to inbuilt revenue which according to assessee was inadvertent income. In our considered view, Tribunal has rightly held that there is no satisfactory evidence placed before it to substantiate assessee's plea that they wrongly computed admitted income. Thus in light of above discussion, we find there is no Substantial Questions 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 of Law much less Substantial Questions of Law arises for consideration in this Appeal. Tax Case Appeal fails and accordingly, same is dismissed. No costs. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J) 19.08.2020 sk Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. sk T.C.A.No.219 of 2020 19.08.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Pesco Beam Environmental Solutions Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai