Kosc Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1007/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8680 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 1007/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD..................APPELLANT 56E, STEPHEN HOUSE HEMANTA BASU SARANI 6 TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 101, DALHOUSIE KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN: AAICS 8707 M] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA........................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 9 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 15 TH , 2020 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 04/10/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. AT THE OUTSET I FIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 146 (ONE HUNDRED FORTY SIX) DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. HENCE THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OFF THE CASE EX-PARTE , ON MERITS, QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. HEARD THE LD. D/R. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE CASE ON MERITS. HENCE 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, SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.10,000/- (RS. FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) RELIEF FUND, FOR HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US IN THIS PROCEEDING. THE CIT(A) SHALL THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4.1. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMB 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, 11, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 11. WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY OF THESE DECIDED 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 WHI CH 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 ENRI 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 TO ALTER IT. THE REQUEST IN THAT BEHALF IS REFUSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS DIRECTED ABOVE. KOLKATA, THE DATED : 15.01.2020 {SC SPS} 2 (RS. FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF PRIME MINISTER FOR HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US IN THE CIT(A) SHALL VERIFY THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT 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 CH 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 ENRI CH 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 KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1007/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF PRIME MINISTER FOR HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US IN THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE AY HIGH COURT VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHEREIN AT PARA 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 CH 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 CH 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 ANY BASIS IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD 56E, STEPHEN HOUSE HEMANTA BASU SARANI 6 TH FLOOR ROOM NO. 101, DALHOUSIE KOLKATA 700 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(1), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 3 OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 5(1), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES I.T.A. NO. 1007/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 KOSC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES