DYANESHWARI MULTI STATE URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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.

In the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal, effectively it has claimed for the restoration of the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A), since it was 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. 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……”.

1. On these findings, ld. CIT(A) noted in para – 7.1 that case of the assessee was heard on 14.09.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench 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

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 appeal 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.

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 appeal 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.

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 matter 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 ITA No.1593/Mum/2023, dated 14.09.2023. While remitting the matter, 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-

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.