KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

At the outset I find that there is a delay of 146 (one hundred forty six) days in filing of this appeal by the assessee. After perusing the petition for condonation, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Hence the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. There is no petition for adjournment either. Under these circumstances, we dispose off the case ex-parte , on merits, qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

Heard the ld. D/R. After perusing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), I find that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence an ex-parte order was passed. The ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits. Hence I deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of natural justice, subject to the payment of cost of Assessment Year: 2013-14 KOSC Industries Pvt. Ltd. Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) (Rs. Five Thousand Only) by the assessee in favour of Prime Minister by the assessee in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund, for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us in for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us in for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us in this proceeding. The CIT(A) shall The CIT(A) shall verify the said payment by the assessee the said payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to dispose off the case afresh, in accordance with law. thereafter proceed to dispose off the case afresh, in accordance with law. thereafter proceed to dispose off the case afresh, in accordance with law. 4.1. For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bomb assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court ay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle in of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, Circle in ITA No. 493 of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, wherein at para wherein at para 11, it has been held as follows: 11, it has been held as follows:- “11. We do not find that any of these decided “11. We do not find that any of these decided cases have any application to cases have any application to the facts before us. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant the facts before us. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant the facts before us. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While ch was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While ch was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render substantial justice and not to enri substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been ch the Revenue that the costs have been imposed. It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to imposed. It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to imposed. It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis any basis to alter it. The request in that behalf is refused.” to alter it. The request in that behalf is refused.”

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as directed above. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 15th day of January, 2020.