M/s Manipur Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO,Ward 8(1),Kol., Kolkata

ITA 340/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1659 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURAABH KUMAR ACITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 340 / KOL / 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S MANIPUR FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., 501A, DIAMOND PRESTIGE, 5 TH FLOOR, 41A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-17 [ PAN NO.AABCM 8979 J ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SAURAABH KUMAR, ACIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-05-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-06-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATA DAT ED 25.01.2017. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-8(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. SHRI S.M. SURANA, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ITA NO.340/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2012- 13 M/S MANIPUR FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. I TO WARD-8(1) KOL. PAGE 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE PER ITS APPEAL AR E AS UNDER:- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITRA RY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORD ER EX PARTE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT ANY PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD WHEN THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NOT SERVED AND THE LD. AO. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUMMARILY REJEC TING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED WHEN ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED AND W ERE RECORD OF THE AO, THE AO DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER TO EXAMINE VARIOUS D ETAILS DULY FILED. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,50,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO HOLDING THAT THE ID ENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS WAS NOT PROVED SIM PLY BECAUSE THE CAPITAL WAS RAISED AT HUGE PREMIUM OR THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES WERE NOT PRODUCED. 5. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMATION THE ADDITION OF RS.6,4 0,00000/- 6. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE RE LIEF PRAYED FOR. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT NOBODY FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE N OTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSE E AND THIS FACT WAS DULY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE SAME WAS NOT COMMUNICA TED TO LD. CIT(A). LD AR FURTHER REQUESTED THE BENCH TO RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). HE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DI SCUSSION, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX PARTE ORDER BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE. WE F URTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ITA NO.340/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2012- 13 M/S MANIPUR FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. I TO WARD-8(1) KOL. PAGE 3 ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOR THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE WE ARE INCL INED TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS AS AND WHEN ASKED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS APPEAL OF ASS ESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 02/ 06/2017 SD/- SD/- ( !') ( !') (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S $!% &- 02 / 06 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S MANIPUR FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., 5 01A, DIAMOND PRESTIGE, 5 TH FLOOR, 41A, A.J .C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-17 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO, WARD-8(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOL-69 3. %.%/0 1 1 2 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 1 1 2- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 567 /0, 1 /0 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1! , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 1 /0 ,