Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Anr.

Rupinderjit Chahal, J.

The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been preferred against the consolidated order dated 25.03.2026 (uploaded on 06.04.2026) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), passed in ITA Nos.791/Chd/2025 and 792/Chd/2025.

The re-assessment proceedings initiated against the appellant for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 culminated in ex-parte assessment orders which were subsequently upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, being of the view that the matter required fresh adjudication on merits, set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the matters to the file

of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both the assessment years for fresh consideration, while imposing cost of ₹2 lakh in each appeal to be deposited with the “Poor Relief Fund, PGI, Chandigarh” with the stipulation that, in the event of default in payment of the cost, the order of the Tribunal shall not be given effect and the earlier orders passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would stand revived.

The appellant does not assail the impugned order on merits and has confined the present appeal only to the quantum of cost imposed by the Tribunal while restoring the matters to the file of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the imposition of cost of Rs.2 lakhs in each appeal is exorbitant and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore requires interference by this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Tribunal as far as imposing of cost is concerned.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of considered view that, although the conduct of the appellant in not effectively pursuing the proceedings before the authorities cannot be ignored, however, the cost imposed by the Tribunal seems to be on the higher side, particularly when the Tribunal itself observed that a substantial part of the assessment proceedings pertained to the period affected by Covid-19 pandemic and having regard to the said circumstance, considered it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the cost from ₹2 lakhs to ₹25,000/- in each appeal while maintaining the order dated 25.03.2026. The appellant shall deposit the cost in Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of 04 weeks from today.

Needless to add, except for the reduction in the cost, the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 shall remain unaltered.

The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.