Case Law Details
Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KEC Interntional Ltd v/s. B.R. Balakrishnan (Supra) has been pleased to hold that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. In the present case, it remained the allegation of the appellant that recovery action was taken by the A.O by attaching bank account of the appellant u/s. 226(3) on 29.3.2010 on the basis of first appellate order passed on 3rd February 2010 and was served upon the assessee on 31st March 2010.
Noting these material facts and the above submissions of the Ld. A.R. which have not been successfully rebutted by the Revenue before us, we are of the view that the events in the present case are sufficient to make us of the belief that the appellant a Credit Co-operative Society dealing only with its members has been unnecessarily subjected to the harassment caused by the actions of the authorities below which were not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is thus a fit case for invoking the provisions laid down u/s. Sub-sections 2(B) of Section 254 of the Act to impose cost on the Revenue to be paid to the appellant to compensate the harassment caused by the officers of the Revenue at fault to the appellant to some extent. We, accordingly award a cost of Rs. 5000/- against the Revenue which is to be paid to the appellant Credit Society within 3 months from the end of the month in which order of the Tribunal is received by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax concerned. The Ground No. 3 is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Pune Bench B, Pune
ITA No. 477/PN/2010 (Asst. Year : 2006- 07)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Such token costs hardly affect Revenue officers, as is generally believed that such meagre amounts hardly bother such power wielding officers ?