Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ghosh & Co……………....……………………….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant 71, B.R.B. Basu Road Room No. C112 & C113 Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AAFFG 8015 Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata…….....………………...…...........Respondent Appearances by: Shri V.N. Dutta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Halder, Sr. D/R. JCIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 25th , 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (ld. CIT(A)) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the ‘Act’), dt. 04/05/2018, for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Heard rival contentions and perused the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence an ex-parte order was passed. As the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the cases on merits, we 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). The CIT(A) shall verify the said payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to dispose off the case on merits. 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 in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle in of Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ghosh & Co 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.”
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as directed above. Kolkata, the 28th day of February, 2019.