ABDUL MOKTAR,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(1) , BURDWAN

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 Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) 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 this proceeding. The CIT(A) shall verify the said payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to dispose off the case afresh, in accordance with law.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Abdul Moktar 4.2. 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 Bombay High Court assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay 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, 015 & 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 cases have any application to “11. We do not find that any of these decided cases have any application to “11. We do not find that any of these decided 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 bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was 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 which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose 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 enrich the Revenue that the costs have been substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been substantial justice and not to enrich 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 in any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court in 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 any basis which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find 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 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as is allowed for statistical purposes as directed above. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 15th day of January, 2020.