GUPTA INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us today was, that the appellant was proceeded against ex -parte before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and that, the controversy be relegated back to Tribunal, to be disposed of on merits. In this behalf, it ready and willing to bear costs for not appearing before Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is, that on the proposition of law (adjudicated upon in the impugned order dated 25 -4 -2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) stands settled by this Court, and that, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the parties back to the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) THE aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is refuted by the learned counsel for the appellant. He states that the real issues canvassed on behalf of the appellant could not be considered on account of absence of representation.

(3.) IN view of the fact, that the appellant has been responsible for requiring the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the main appeal for the second time, we are satisfied that the appellant should pay costs to the respondent. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000 as costs. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited with the Assessing Officer within one week from today. If the aforesaid costs are not deposited with the Assessing Officer within the time stipulated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25 -4 -2008 shall be deemed to have revived automatically.