BFL Exports Ltd., Kolkata V. A.C.I.T.,Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1724/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4487 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• 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 SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1724/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 BFL EXPORTS LTD............................................................................................APPELLANT 31, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD PARK STREET KOLKATA 700 016 [PAN : AAACB 7497 D] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR............................................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 : FEBRUARY 25 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 26 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 15/05/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. 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. 3. 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. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS I.E., 18/04/2019 AT 2:30 P.M. AND SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON 22/04/2019. ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT. 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 VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.10,000/- (RS. TEN THOUSAND ONLY) BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF PRIME MINISTER RELIEF FUND, FOR HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US IN THIS PROCEEDING. THE CIT(A) SHALL VERIFY THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY REASONABLE, I RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE IN ITA NO. 493 OF 2015 & 508 OF 2015, DT. SEPTEM BER 19, 2017, 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 E VEN 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 BE NEFITED 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 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ABOVE. KOLKATA, THE DATED : 26.02.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. BFL EXPORTS LTD 31, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD PARK STREET KOLKATA 700 016 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 2 FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHIN MEGHANI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE IN ITA NO. 493 OF 2015 BER 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 VEN 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 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 NEFITED 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 KOLKATA, THE 26 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1724/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 BFL EXPORTS LTD COSTS, WHILE CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS 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 2015 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 VEN 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 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 NEFITED 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. PURPOSES AS DIRECTED TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES