Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1695/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6198 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD; GIRISH DAVE SPECIAL COUNSE L
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRI SR
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1695/KOL/2017 SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, AY 2014-15 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . . , /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM] I.T.A. NO. 1695/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR (PAN: AFTPP2386N) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 03.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.07.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI J. D. MISTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI GIRISH DAVE, SPECIAL COUNSE L & MD. USMAN, CIT INTERIM ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM IN CONTINUATION TO OUR INTERIM ORDER DATED 03.04.20 18, WE NOTE THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING MR. GIRISH DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE HAS BEEN A PPOINTED BY THE CBDT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO DEFEND THE ITA NO. 1695/KOL/2017 IN THE CASE OF SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR VS. DCIT. MR. DAVE, LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS MOVED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WHEREIN HE POINTS OUT THAT HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CBDT ONLY ON 26.06.2018, THEREFORE, HE PLEADS THAT HE CO ULD NOT PREPARE THE BRIEF TO DEFEND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE SEEKS TIME AND REQUESTED THAT T HE APPEAL TO BE FIXED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, SO THAT HE CAN PREPARE THE MATTER. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. COUNSEL MR. J. D. MIS TRI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSES THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE. ACCORDING TO HIM, MORE THAN A YEAR HAS EL APSED AFTER FILING OF APPEAL AND ALL THE TIME THE SAME DELAY TACTICS GOES ON AND THEREFO RE NO MORE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED. 3. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE BENCH MADE A PROPOSAL TH AT LET THE SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUE THEIR APPEAL AND THEN THE LD. SPECIA L COUNSEL AFTER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO ARGUE ON ANY DATE FROM 04.07.2018 TO NEXT 2 ITA NO. 1695/KOL/2017 SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, AY 2014-15 WEEK ENDING ON 13.07.2018. THE LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL THOUGH INITIALLY AGREED TO ARGUE THE MATTER ON 04.07.2018, LATER RESCINDED BY SAYING THAT THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS OF 72 PAGES AND IT REQUIRES DEEP STUDY AND IN CASE ADJOUR NMENT IS NOT GRANTED TO MONTH OF AUGUST, THEN HE WOULD WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTING TH E REVENUE IN THIS CASE. SO, WHEN THE BENCH ASKED THE LD. CIT, DR MR. USMAN, HE EXPRE SSED HIS HELPLESSNESS IN ASSISTING THE BENCH BECAUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS BEEN APPOINTE D BY THE CBDT TO APPEAR IN THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. SO WE NOTE THAT THIS IS A SITUATION WHEREIN LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO DEFEND THE R EVENUE AND SEEKS ADJOURNMENT AND THE LD. CIT, DR HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO REPR ESENT THE REVENUE BECAUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CBDT TO APPEAR IN THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, SO IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THERE WILL BE NOBO DY APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ARE ADJOURNING THIS MATTER FOR 21 ST AUGUST, 2018 AND IT WILL BE THE LAST OPPORTUNITY GRANTED TO THE REVENUE. 4. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO THE INTERIM- ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 WHEREIN THERE WAS A CLEAR DI RECTION FOR REFUND OF RS. 2 CR. TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD COUNSEL HAS NOT BEEN TILL DATE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, SO HE WANTED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBU NAL BE IMPLEMENTED. ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR REVENUE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE SOME INTERNAL NOTINGS WHEREIN THERE IS CERTAIN TECHNICAL GLITCH IN GENERA TING A MANUAL REFUND WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE THE REASON FOR NOT REFUNDING THE AMOUNT AS DI RECTED BY US. WE DO NOT APPROVE SUCH STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ON THE TECHNICAL REASON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT REMAIN UNIMPLEMENTED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO REFUND THE SUM OF RS. 2 CR. WITHIN A WEEKS TIME FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT/AO AS THE CASE MAY BE. WE ALSO DIRECT THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CONDITIONS FOR EXTENSION OF STAY UNTIL THE MATTER I S FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OF. THEREFORE, THE STAY OF DEMAND IS MADE ABSOLUTE TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 5. CASE ADJOURNED TO 21.08.2018. BOTH PARTIES ARE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT. NO FRESH NOTICE WOULD FOLLOW. SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3 RD JULY, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NO. 1695/KOL/2017 SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, AY 2014-15 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PODDAR, HONGKONG HO USE, 31, B. B. D. BAG (SOUTH), KOLKATA-700 001. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) , KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-M AIL) 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY