What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, citing principles of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was levied on the assessee.

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the ITAT despite notices. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication on grounds of natural justice.

M/S. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust….………..………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant R. No. 408 4th Floor 85, N S Road Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AABTK 7897 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2), Kolkata….……………………………………...…….……….......Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Provas Roy, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 30th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : August 24th, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 15/03/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice by RPAD. There was no application moved by the assessee for adjournment either. Under the circumstances we dispose of the case ex-parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

After hearing the ld. D/R and perusing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), I find that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence and ex-parte order was passed. As the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits, 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. While doing so, we levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before me in this proceeding.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust For this proposition, 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 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, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as directed above.

Kolkata, the 24th day of August, 2018. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 24.08.2018 {SC SPS}

Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Ketan Saraf Benefit Trust R. No. 408 4th Floor 85, N S Road Kolkata – 700 001

2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

M/S. KETAN SARAF BENEFIT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments