DILIP JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY () Assessment Year: 2012-13
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year
2012-13, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law on the subject the Learned assessing officer erred in not condoning fees and income u/
On the fa the subje order of A 2. On the f being bey payment
2. We have heard the relevant materia dismissed the appeal
5,000/- which was issue in dispute on m
“DECISION
6. I have con
7. In this 5412/Mum/
"5. Ha view should case p the as failure
Accord
5,000/
"other payme passe of the after a the as with th
ITA g the delay in payment of Rs. 5,000
continuing addition of Rs. 13,18,730
/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax acts and circumstances of the case an ect the Learned CIT(A) erred in con
Assessing Officer.
facts and circumstances of the case yond the control of the assessee. Th be condoned and the addition be dele rival submissions of the parti als on record. We find that the l of the assessee for late payme levied by the Tribunal, withou merit, observing as under:
:
nsidered the facts of the case.
case, the Hon'ble
ITAT vide
/2017 dated 02.11.2017 has held as u aving regard to the rival submissions, that, in the interest of justice, the d be given one more opportunity to properly. At the same time I am of th ssessee should bear a cost of Rs. 50
e to appear before the tax dingly, I direct the assessee to pay a /- to the credit of Income Tax Dep fees" on or before 30.11.2017. Sub ent of above said fees, I set aside d by CIT(A) and restore all the issue
AO with the direction to examine t affording adequate opportunity of bei ssessee. I also direct the assessee t he AO for expeditious disposal of the m
Dilip Jayantilal Shah
2
A No. 6131/MUM/2024
0/- as other
0/- as total x Act' 1961. nd in law on ntinuing the e the delay he delay in eted.
ies and perused e Ld. CIT(A) has nt of cost of Rs.
ut deciding the I.T.A.
No.
under:-
I am of the e assessee present his he view that 00/- for his authorities.
sum of Rs.
partment as bject to the e the order es to the file them afresh ng heard to to cooperate matter"
Thus, the specific. The made before the payment abide by th appellant ha Hon'ble ITAT the same for 9. On the is Court in the Finance Corp 1991 ECR 4 paid by th authorities t give effect authorities. 10. Under th was right in Hon'ble ITAT taken Rs. 1 order. Accor stand DISMI 2.1 We find that th assessee for the reas Rs.5,000/- levied, w 30.11.2017, wherea amount of cost on assessee has comp Rs.5,000/- though w the facts and circum condone the delay in has not decided the him with the directio ITA directions of the Hon'ble ITAT are ver e payment of Rs. 5,000/- ought to e 30.11.2017. The appellant has act t on 16.05.2018. This office has no op he directions of a higher Judicial Fo as any difficulty in fulfilling directi T or needs any relaxation, he shoul rum. ssue of judicial discipline, the Hon'b case of Union of India and Others vs rporation AIR 1992 SC 711, 1994 (46 486 SC, has held that utmost regard he adjudicating authorities and the to the requirements of judicial discipli to the binding orders of the highe hese circumstances, I am of the view stating that 'as the condition put forw T has not been adhered to, the tota 3,18,730 assessed as per original a rdingly, the Grounds raised by the ISSED.” he Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the son that assessee failed to dep which was directed to be d as the assessee actually depo 16.05.2018. We are of the op plied with the direction to d with slight delay of approximately mstances of the case, we feel it n deposit of the cost levied. Sinc appeal on merit, we restore the on to decide the appeal on merit Dilip Jayantilal Shah 3 A No. 6131/MUM/2024 ry clear and have been tually made option but to orum. If the ions of the ld approach ble Supreme s Kamlakshi 6) ECC 129, d should be e appellate ine so as to er appellate that the AO ward by the al income is assessment e appellant e appeal of the posit the cost of eposited before osited the said pinion that the deposit cost of y six months. In t appropriate to ce the Ld. CIT(A) e matter back to t after providing adequate opportunity of appeal of the asses 3. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 21/01/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA y of being heard to the assesse ssee are allowed for statistical pu the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 21/0
-
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Dilip Jayantilal Shah
4
A No. 6131/MUM/2024
ee. The grounds urposes.
is allowed for 01/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai