Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 5(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 995/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3968 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 995/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD..............................APPELLANT 2/1, MADHAV SETH LANE KOLKATA 700 007 [PAN: AAECP 9024 A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), KOLKATA........................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, A/R, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 10 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 8 TH , 2019 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. 09/01/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON THE GROUNDS OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE PASSED EX-PARTE ORDERS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, RECORDED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AS WELL AS IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS 86, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA 700001, WHEREAS THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS 57/3G/1, 3 RD FLOOR, NSC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 700040 AND HENCE, THE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN YET ANOTHER ADDRESS IN FORM NO. 36 I.E., 2/1, MADHAV SETH LANE, KOLAKTA 700007. 2.1. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISH HIS CORRECT CURRENT ADDRESS AND THEREAFTER CO-OPERATE IN THE DISPOSAL OFF THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO PAY COST OF RS.5,000/- (R S. FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THIS PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER PROCEED TO MAKE 2.2. 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 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 CASES HAVE ANY APPLICATION TO THE FACTS BEFORE U S. 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 DAY 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 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 BEHAL 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS DIRECTED ABOVE. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.11.2019 {SC SPS} 2 S. FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) IN FAVOUR OF PRIME MINISTER RELIEF FUND HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THIS ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE MAKE DE NOVO ASSESSMENT, 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 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 S. 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 DAY S 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 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 BEHAL F IS REFUSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT I.T.A. NO. 995/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD. IN FAVOUR OF PRIME MINISTER RELIEF FUND , FOR HAVING NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THIS THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT, 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 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 S. 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 S 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 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 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD 2/1, MADHAV SETH LANE KOLKATA 700 007 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 3 OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD 5(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES I.T.A. NO. 995/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES