Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad

Bhavani Jewellers, Hyderabad, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 November, 2015

            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             HYDERABAD BENCHES "B", HYDERABAD


  BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                        AND
        SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                     M.A. No. 114/HYD/2015
                (Arising out of ITA No. 1136/Hyd/2012)
                    Assessment Year : 2008-09

   Income Tax Officer (HQrs),          M/s. Bhavani Jewellers,
   O/o. CIT (Audit),              Vs   HYDERABAD
   (The then ITO, Ward-8(2),           [PAN: AADFB7724K]
   HYDERABAD

             (Applicant)                     (Respondent)


                 For Revenue       : Shri B. Kurmi Naidu, DR
                 For Assessee      : Shri M.V. Joshi, AR


                Date of Hearing :      27-11-2015
     Date of Pronouncement      :      27-11-2015



                             ORDER



PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :

This Miscellaneous Application was preferred by the Assessing Officer (AO) on whom cost of Rs. 500/- was levied, while disposing off the appeal in the case of M/s. Bhavani Jewellers, Hyderabad on 15-07-2015 in ITA No. 1136/Hyd/2012. While disposing off the appeals, the ITAT has awarded cost on the AO, who passed the assessment order and also on the AO who 2 M.A. No. 114/Hyd/2015 M/s. Bhavani Jewellers preferred second appeal. The relevant portion of the order of the ITAT is as under:

"............On the facts of this case, we are constrained to levy a token cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the AO who passed the assessment order and further cost of Rs. 500/- on the AO who preferred second appeal. These should be collected from their salary and deposited in to the treasury as per the rules. Any entry in their personal record should also be made by the superior authority so that AO would not repeat the same in future ................."

The present Miscellaneous Application is preferred by the AO, who at the relevant point of time preferred the second appeal. It was submitted that when the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO has submitted an AAO report dt. 31-05-2012 in which all the issues were discussed and the AO has not suggested further appeal on any of the issues. It was further submitted that vide letter in F.No. Batch-25(07)/CIT-II/12-13 dt. 23-07-2012, he was directed to file further appeal and accordingly, at the directions of the CIT-II, Hyderabad, AO has preferred the appeal. It was submitted that AO had preferred appeal only to discharge his official duties and to follow the directions given by superior authorities as the then AO and in the above factual situation awarding cost on the AO of Rs. 500/- is not appropriate and requested to withdraw the cost so levied.

2. After considering the contentions of this AO and perusing the reports submitted by him to CIT-II, Hyderabad, we agree that the role of the AO in preferring the appeal is limited to following the directions given by the Sr. Officer in preferring the second appeal.

M/s. Bhavani Jewellers In view of this, we hereby withdraw the cost levied on the AO who preferred the second appeal. The order to that extent stands modified.

3. In the result, present Miscellaneous Application is allowed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 27th November, 2015 Sd/- Sd/-

  (SAKTIJIT DEY)                          (B. RAMAKOTAIAH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                          ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


Hyderabad, Dated 27th November, 2015

TNMM



Copy to :

1. Income Tax Officer, (HQrs), O/o. CIT (Audit), (The then ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad.)

2. M/s. Bhavani Jewellers, 21-2-149, Charkaman, Hyderabad. C/o. P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

3. The CIT(Appeals)-III, Hyderabad.

4. The CIT-II, Hyderabad.

5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.

6. Guard File