What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on merits, leading to the present appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly passed ex-parte orders without disposing of the cases on merits. The issue of non-compliance by the assessee leading to costs.

Artline Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY & SH. A.T.VARKEY

Hearing: 01.08.2018Pronounced: 30.08.2018

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both appeals filed by the assessee against the orders dated 29.09.2016 & 15.03.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 2. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) in these cases has passed ex-parte order. He has not disposed of the cases on merits. In these circumstances, we set aside this assessment to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. A cost of Rs.10,000/- is levied on the assessee for non-compliance. While doing so, we apply the proposition of law laid down by 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 & 1498/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2009-10] 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 appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2018.

ARTLINE FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(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