Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with a direction to pay a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two months. The assessee deposited the cost with a delay of 19 days, explaining it was due to obtaining the necessary receipt.
Held
The Tribunal held that the imposition of cost is a disciplinary measure and the assessee had effectively complied with the direction, despite a minor delay. The Tribunal found it appropriate in the interest of justice to remit the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether a minor delay in depositing the cost imposed by the ITAT warrants dismissal of appeals, or if the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
153A, 144, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, vide order nos.
i) ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069831000(1), ii) ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069831034(1) iii) ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069831057(1) iv) ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069831078(1) all dated 21.10.2024 passed against the assessment orders by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(3), Mumbai, u/s. 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, dated 08.05.2021 and 2018-19, dated 07.05.2021.
Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “Vide order dated 14/09/2023, The Hon'ble ITAT had directed as under Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Prime Minister Relief Fund" within two months from the date of receipt of this order. However, our application for restoration of appeal shows that the Rs. 1,00,000/- receipt of PM's Citizen Assistance and Emergency Situations Fund is dated 02/12/2023.Respected lordship we already deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 vide DD No. 000030 of AU Small Finance Bank dt. 07/11/2023 but not got the receipt for the same. Learned CIT Appeal demanding the receipt of Rs. 1,00,000.00 of PM's Citizen Assistance and Emergency Situations Fund, then we trying to got receipts but lot of time consumed. Hence respected lordship we cancelled the said DD number 000030 of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and paid online through UPI on dt 02/12/2023 and get instant receipts. Hence respected lordship delay in payment only because of getting receipts for the same, Our intension is to timely deposit the cost of 1,00,000.00 Rs. Deposited to the credit of PM's Citizen Assistance and Emergency Situations Fund. Hence respected lordship condone the delay.”
Common issue is involved in all the four appeals, whereby in the grounds raised by the assessee, effectively it has claimed for the restoration of the appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A), since they were dismissed for want of compliance of specific direction by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, whereby a cost of Rs.1 lakh was imposed on the assessee which was to be paid to the credit of “Prime Minister Relief Fund” within two months from the date of receipt of the order of Coordinate Bench. The cost so imposed was in respect of five appeals heard and disposed off together by a consolidated order in to 1597/MUM/2023 dated 14.09.2023. Thereafter, it was held that “Subject to the payment of the above said cost as directed by us, which fact shall be verified by the ld. CIT(A), all the grounds urged before us in all the five appeals are restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh……”. Out of the five appeals, one of these vide for Assessment Year 2014-15 was disposed off vide order dated 17.01.2025 by remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication after condoning the delay in depositing the cost by holding that assessee had effectively met the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench. Present four appeal are squarely covered by the order pronounced on 17.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 on identical fact patern.
3.1. On the above stated findings of the Co-ordinate Bench, ld. CIT(A) noted in para – 7.1 that case of the assessee was heard on 14.09.2023 and the order was pronounced on the same day. According to him, cost of Rs.1 lakh ought to be have been deposited on or before 13.11.2023. Assessee deposited the said cost as directed by the Co-ordinate Bench to the PM Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES) vide receipt No. PMCARES/Web/202312022210180425, dated 02.12.2023 which was found to be correct upon verification by the ld. CIT(A). While disposing the appeals, the only issue considered by ld. CIT(A) is in respect of the cost imposed by the Co-ordinate Bench as to whether it has been paid within the period of two months as directed.
3.2. The undisputed fact is that assessee had deposited the cost so imposed of Rs.1 lakh by way of a Demand Draft dated 07.11.2023 drawn on AU Small Finance Bank, bearing No.000030 in favour of PM Relief Fund. Assessee had substantiated the deposit of this amount by furnishing bank statement of Shri Avinash Mishra from whose account the said Demand Draft was issued. However, subsequently, the said Demand Draft was cancelled and actual payment was made on 02.12.2023 thorough UPI. On this fact, ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of 19 days in complying with the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench in making the payment of cost imposed, since it ought to have been deposited on or before 13.11.2023.
3.3. On account of this delay in complying with the direction of the Co- ordinate Bench for depositing the cost imposed, ld. CIT(A) was in dilemma whether to admit the appeal or not. While coming out from this dilemma, ld. CIT(A) observed that his office has no option but to abide by the directions of higher judicial forum and therefore assessee should approach the Co-ordinate Bench to seek appropriate direction. He thus, dismissed the appeals for want of compliance of specific direction of the Hon'ble ITAT. Contesting on this dismissal, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld. Counsel demonstrated that there is no dispute on the fact of deposit of impugned cost by the assessee which has been admittedly acknowledged by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. It is a meagre delay of 19 days in complying with the direction for deposit of cost so imposed, however, the compliance has been met effectively and therefore ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned such a delay instead of going with a pedantic approach of dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
4.1. We take note of the fact that assessee has effectively met with the compliance of direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench while depositing the cost imposed on it, though there being a delay of 19 days, for which also an explanation has been placed on record causing the said delay. A prayer is made before us for the restoration of the appeals back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication as originally directed by the Co-ordinate Bench in its first order, by condoning the delay in deposit of cost imposed which has been effectively met by the assessee.
4.2. In this respect, we are of the view that imposition of cost is a disciplinary measure towards bringing coherence in the approach of the assessee in complying the statutory requirements under the applicable law. Assessee has effectively met the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench and therefore we find it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to remit the matters back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication in terms of directions as given originally in the first order of the Co-ordinate Bench in to 1597/Mum/2023, dated 14.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2015-16 to 2018-19. While remitting the matters, we would also like to take note of provisions contained in Section 250 of the Act which provides for procedure to be followed by CIT(A) while disposing the appeal. Sub- section (4) of section 250 of the Act provides that the Ld. CIT(A) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, sub-section (6) provides that the CIT(A) shall pass an order in writing and shall set the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Keeping in mind the provision of sections 250 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case by examining, verifying and analysing the material on record. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 21 January, 2025