TULIP GLOBAL PVT. LTD.C/o- Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CA H-406-B Azad Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur-302001, Jaipur V. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur, Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 614/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9762 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROONIPAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Speculation loss; Accommodation entries; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 250; 148; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED 305-III, FLOOR, JAIPUR TOWER, OPP. ALL INDIA RADIO, MI ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCT 8239 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR GUPTA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROONI PAL (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AND SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) U/S 147/144 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS BEING AGAINST TH E PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FOR MANY MORE OTHER REASONS. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE SAME. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING I S ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 2 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. AO HAS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S SURU CHI TRADING IS NOT GENUINE AND CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE SAME . FINDING IS PERVERSE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLEGAL. THE ADDITION MADE IS EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLEGAL. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 11,671/- BY ALLEGING THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR ACQUIRING BOGUS PROFIT AND CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE SAME. THE ADDITION MADE IS EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLE GAL. 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. AO HAS ERRED BY PASSING ORDER U/S 154 AND ENHANCING INCOME BY RS. 16,24,146/- FROM 11,671/-. THE ADDITION MADE IS EXC ESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLEGAL. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 16,24,146/- UNDER T HE HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY HOLDING RS. 15,92,300 AS UNAC COUNTED MONEY- COMMODITY PROFIT AND RS.31846 AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY- COMMISSION.. THE ADDITION MADE IS EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLE GAL. 7. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. AO HAS ERRED BY DETERMINING TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME TO BE RS. 14,75,60,373/-. THE INCOME DETERMINED IS EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED OR ILLEGAL. 8. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTY AND FURTHERMORE NOT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF C OVID-19 PANDEMIC. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 8 GROUNDS HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONF INED HIS ARGUMENT ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT RAISED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE L D. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 3 ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM TH E BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SPECULATI VE TRANSACTIONS ON THE COMMODITIES EXCHANGE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS APPOINTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO THE INFORMATI ON RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, AHMEDABAD AND THAT TOO UNDER SE CTION 133A OF THE ACT AT THE PREMISES OF NMCE WHEREIN CERTAIN BROKERS /PERSONS WERE FOUND TO BE INDULGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES OF SPECULATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS TO THE PARTIES AS PER T HEIR NEED. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S REOPENED THE ASSESSEE ON THE BORROWED SATISFACTION AS THE INFORM ATION RECEIVED FROM THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION WING, AHMEDABAD IS THE BASIS OF REOPENING WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPL ICATION OF MIND. EVEN THE SAID INFORMATION AS REFERRED BY THE AO IN THE REASONS RECORDED DOES NOT REVEAL THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TREATED THROUGH PRAKASH CHAND JAIN AND RATAN LAL SOMANI AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ALLEGED BROKERS M/S PRIYANK COMMODITIES, M/S SURUCHI TRADING AND M /S PIONEER TRADING WHICH ARE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT AS INVOLV ED IN THE ACTIVITY ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 4 OF PROVIDING BOGUS COMMODITY ENTRIES FOR SPECULATIV E PROFIT AND LOSS. THUS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT A ND LIVE LINKED BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE FORMATION TO B ELIEF BY THE AO THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF SPE CULATIVE COMMODITY ENTRIES OF RS. 15,92,300/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON A SERIES OF DECISION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. HE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN PARA 4 AND 6 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPT ED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCE THE CONTRACT NOTE/BILLS REGARDING THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF COMMODITY IN THE SPECULATIVE S EGMENT. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TRADED DIRECTLY THROUGH THESE BROKERS NAMELY M/S PRIYANK COMMODITIES, M/S SURUCHI TRADING AND M/S PIONEER TRADING HOWEVER, TH E AO HAS LINKED THE ALLEGED BROKER M/S PRIYANK COMMODITIES, M/S SU RUCHI TRADING AND M/S PIONEER TRADING AS COUNTER PARTY BROKERS IN ARR ANGING THE AFFAIRS OF MISUSING OF NATIONAL MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE PLATE FORM. 2.1 THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR CHALLENGING T HE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IS THAT APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PR.CIT U/ S 151 OF THE ACT IS MECHANICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 5 APPROVAL GRANTED BY PR. CIT AS PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PR.CIT HAS JUST WRITTEN AS YES A ND SIGN BELOW THAT WHICH SHOW THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE PR.CIT WHILE GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT A ND REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE PROPOSAL FORM HAS MENTIONED SECTION 151(2) AS RELEVANT SECTION WH ILE SEEKING APPROVAL WHEREAS THE CASE IN HAND IS ARISING FROM S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(1) ARE APPLICABLE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 06.12.2018 IN CASE OF M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 464/JP/2018 AND 761/JP/2018. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING T HE BOGUS COMMODITY ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SPEC ULATIVE PROFIT. THE AO HAS REFERRED THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS FOUND BOGUS COMM ODITY ENTRIES OF SPECULATIVE PROFIT TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SPECULATIV E LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT BY WAY OF T HIS BOGUS ENTRIES OF SPECULATIVE PROFIT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTROVERTED IT S UNCOUNTED INCOME WITHOUT PAYING INCOME TAX AS SPECULATIVE LOSS WAS A DJUSTED AGAINST THE ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 6 ALLEGED PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY M ENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE BROKERS M/S PRIYANK COMMO DITIES, M/S SURUCHI TRADING AND M/S PIONEER TRADING ARE COUNTER PARTY BROKERS IN ARRANGING SUCH AFFAIRS OF BOOKING SPECULATIVE PROFI T AND LOSS ENTRIES EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DIRECTLY TRANSACTED WI TH THESE BROKER AND HAS TRANSACTED THROUGH ITS OWN BROKERS WHICH DOES N OT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS BEING BOGUS COMMO DITY ENTRIES SPECULATIVE PROFIT. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHAT IS REQUIRE IS THE FORMATION OF BELI EF BASED ON THE PRIMA FACIE REASONS THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO T AX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BOTHERED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE AP PEAL WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEN THERE WAS NO ATTENDANC E DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT AGITATE HIS ISSUE WITHOUT RAISING THE SAME BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) HENCE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. THE AO HAS GIVEN THE CORRECT DETAILS OF T RANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE, THE REOPENING IS BASED O N THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 7 OFFICERS OWN SATISFACTION AND NOT BORROWED SATISFA CTION. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 151 OF THE ACT THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUS E THE AO HAS MENTIONED SECTION 151(1) IN THE PROPOSAL FORM IT D OES NOT VITIATE APPROVAL GRANTED BY PR.CIT AS IT IS ONLY TYPOGRAPHI CAL MISTAKE AND HAS NO BEARING ON THE REASONS RECORDED. THE PROPOSAL SE NT BY THE AO IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM CONTAINS THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E AO WHICH WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE JCIT AS WELL AS PR. CIT BEFORE GRANTING APPROVAL. ONLY AFTER RECOMMENDATION OF JCIT, THE PR.CIT ON HI S SATISFACTION HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL. THUS, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY I N THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY LD. PR.CIT U/S 151 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR HAS RE LIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.1 IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE EX-PARTE ORDER HOWEVER, THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE RAISED EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NON APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL HAVE NO BAR FOR RAISING AND ARGUING THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHAT IS PROPOSED BY THE AO IN THE RE OPENING OF THE ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 8 ASSESSMENT TREATED SPECULATIVE PROFIT AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCE AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SETTING OFF AGAINST SPECULATI VE LOSS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE HAS ARGUED ON THE ISSUE AT LENGTH. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHEN NOBOD Y HAS ATTENDED DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS BEING A LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE HOWEVER, THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS GOT RIGHT TO BYPASS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELIB ERATELY AND THEN RAISE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ONCE, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AN APPEAL AND RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THEN TH E MATTER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. , THEREFORE, THE NON ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE LD. CIT(A) DUE TO NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TH E ASSESSEE TO RAISE THESE ISSUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT HAVING BEN EFIT OF FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT TH IS IS A MIXED QUESTION LAW AND FACTS. THE LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PRODUCED THE ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 9 RELEVANT RECORD AND EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE HAVE NO L INKED WITH THE PERSONS WHO WERE FOUND TO BE INDULGED IN PROVIDING COMMODITY ENTRIES OF BOGUS SPECULATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS. THOUGH THE AS SESSING OFFICER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS A NEXUS WITH THOSE PERSONS BEING COUNTER PARTY PROVIDING THESE TRANSAC TIONS HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT RECORD WE CANNOT EXAMIN E AND GIVE A CONCLUSIVE FINDING ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS FACTUAL IN NATURE TO THE EXTENT WHETHER THE FINDING OF THE AO IS FACTUAL CORRECT OR NOT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECO RD BEFORE THE AO HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME PRODUCE BEFORE US WE CANNOT GIVE A FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE AO IS PERVERSED. 4.1 AS REGARDS THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 151 OF THE ACT PRIMA FACIE WE FIND THAT THE PROFORMA PROPOSAL SEND BY THE AO F OR APPROVAL CONTAINS ALL THE DETAILS AS WELL AS THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE AO WHICH WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE JCIT AND RECOMMENDED THE PROPOSAL OF THE AO FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THEREA FTER THE LD. PR.CIT HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY ON THE FACE OF IT HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON MERITS ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 10 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY IN PARA 3.1 TO 3.3 AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, NOTICES U/S 250 WAS ISSUED TO THE AP PELLANT BY FIXING THE HEARING ON 04-12-2018, 22-01-2019, 25-01 -2019 & 22- 02-2019. NO ONE ATTENDED. OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D IS CENTRAL TO ANY ADJUDICATION PROCESS BUT THAT DOES NOT ABSOL VE THE APPELLANT FROM NON ATTENDANCE AND SUBMISSION OF EVI DENCES IN SUPPORT OF GROUND OF APPEAL DESPITE REPEATED AND SE VERAL NOTICES SENT AND SERVED AND NOT RESPONDED. AN ADJUDICATION PROCEEDING CANNOT BE HELD IN ABEYANCE INDEFINITELY ON ACCOUNT OF NON ATTENDANCE OF THE APPELLANT OR HIS AR. IN THIS CASE THE CONTINUED NON RESPONSIVE ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT HAS LEFT N O OPTION BEFORE ME BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENC ES ON RECORD. 3.2 I HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF TH E CASE FILED ALONG WITH FORM NO. 35. 3.3 IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS, I HAVE RELIED UPON THE FACTS MENTION ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT SEE ANY REA SON TO INTERFERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS WEL L AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE DUE TO NON APPEARAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE OF HEARING AND THEN DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, TH EREFORE, ONLY GROUNDS ITA NO. 614/JP/2019 TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO 11 NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ARE SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/06/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- TULIP GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR . 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 614/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR