Letter of an ITO is not an appealable order before Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 246A – ITAT
In a recent judgment ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that Letter of an ITO is not an appealable order for the purpose of Section 246A of the Act.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3877 (2024) (02) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as non maintainable.
A letter was issued the ITO-TDS, Ward to the assessee for recovery of the outstanding demand. The assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the said letter issued by ITO-TDS.
However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had admittedly filed appeal before the CIT(A) against a letter issued by ITO for recovery of outstanding demand. The same fact was mentioned in Form No. 35 for filing appeal before the CIT(A) as per the Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal noted that in Form No.35, in the relevant Column the assessee had referred to the letter of ITO(TDS). Nowhere in Form No. 35 assessee had referred to order under section 201 of the Act. Thus, it was clear that assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the letter issued by ITO(TDS), Ward.
The Tribunal stated that an assessee can file appeal before the CIT(A) only against the orders passed under specific section mentioned in section 246A of the Act. Since the letter of the ITO was not mentioned in section 246A of the Act, it is not appealable.
The appealable orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are mentioned in Section 246A of the Act. The assessee had filed appeal against the letter of the ITO(TDS), Ward. However, letter of an ITO is not an appealable order for the purpose of Section 246A of the Act.
Therefore, the Tribunal opined that CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable.
Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ITAT
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits
- SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC
- Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus
- Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC
- Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV
 u/s 246A){kind=link}