Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy
Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sital Chandra Das, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 28th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : September 12th, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal of the assessee is filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 28/03/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2008-09.
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: 2008-09 Parvati Projects Pvt. Ltd 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 12th day of September, 2018. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 12.09.2018 {SC SPS}
Assessment Year: 2008-09 Parvati Projects Pvt. Ltd Copy of the order forwarded to: 1Parvati Projects Pvt. Ltd 8, Camac Street 9th Floor Room No. 911 Kolkata – 700 017 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.