SANGINI VYAPAAR (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice by RPAD. The application moved by the assessee for adjournment is rejected as devoid of merit. Under the circumstances we dispose of the case ex-parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

Heard the ld. D/R and perused the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by simply relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, GA NO.509 OF 2016 WITH ITAT NO.113 OF 2016. No discussion whatsoever has been made on the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal

, by the ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law and for passing a speaking order, 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 us in this proceeding. The CIT(A) shall verify the said Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sangini Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to dispose off the case on afresh, in accordance with law. For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the assessee, I 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 Circle in of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, wherein at para 11, it has been held as follows:- “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 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 which 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 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 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 which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis to alter it. The request in that behalf is refused.”