Thai Airways International Public Company Limited , Kolkata V. D.C.I.T., CPC-TDS, Gahaziabad

ITA 2354/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4016 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHRUBAJYOTI RAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 250; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED....................................APPELLANT APEEJAY HOUSE 6 TH FLOOR BLOCK-A PARK STREET KOLKATA 700 016 [PAN : AAAJT 0025 A] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD..........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI RAY, JCIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 28 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 22 ND , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 24, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 07/05/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. AS THE ISSUE ARISING IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 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), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE EX-PARTE ORDERS WERE PASSED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE CASES ON MERITS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. HENCE WE 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), IN RESPECT OF EACH APPEAL, 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. PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. FOR THIS PROPOSITION TO LEVY 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 2015 & 508 OF 2015, DT. SEPTE 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 WHERE THE STATE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO RETAIN ANY BENEFIT OR HAS BEEN B ENEFITED 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 P ABOVE. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ S. S. GODARA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22.10.2020 {SC SPS} 2 ITA NO. 2351, THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US IN THIS PROCEEDING. THE CIT(A) SHALL AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN 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 2015 & 508 OF 2015, DT. SEPTE MBER 19, 2017, WHEREIN AT PARA 11, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS 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 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 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 ENEFITED 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 P URPOSES AS DIRECTED KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED THE CIT(A) SHALL VERIFY THE SAID AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE AFRESH, IN 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 WHEREIN AT PARA 11, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS 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 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 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 ENEFITED 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. URPOSES AS DIRECTED SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED APEEJAY HOUSE 6 TH FLOOR BLOCK-A PARK STREET KOLKATA 700 016 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 3 ITA NO. 2351, THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 2351, 2352, 2353 & 2354/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES