HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Assessment Year: 2010-11 Height Insurance Services Ltd……….….............................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant Kamalalaya Centre Room No. 319 Third Floor 156A, Lenin Sarani Kolkata PIN:- 700 013 [PAN : AACCH 0943 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata..…........………………...…...........Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Halder, Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 19th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : January 16th, 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)-22, Kolkata, (ld. CIT(A)) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the ‘Act’), dt. 29/01/2018, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 415/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Somnath Sapui 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 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 ITA No. 493 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.”