M/s SEG Global Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Saba Leathers Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-1(3), Kolkata

ITA 1505/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9128 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

HEARD, ON THE GROUNDS OF RS.5,000/- (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. 4.2. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE IN ITA NO. 493 OF 2 015 & 508 OF 2015, DT. SEPTEMBER 19, 2017, 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, 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 RETA IN 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED ABOVE. KOLKATA, THE DATED : 10.01.2020 {SC SPS} 2 NATURAL JUSTICE, SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COST OF (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 BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 015 & 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 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 IN 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 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1505/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. SEG GLOBAL MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COST OF 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 ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHEREIN AT PARA 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 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 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 IN 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 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS MEMBER