MULTICOAT VINIMAY PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD-4(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

ITA 593/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The first appeal (ITA No. 592/KOL/2024) challenged the dismissal of the quantum appeal, while the second appeal (ITA No. 593/KOL/2024) contested the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found that the AO had sent notices to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from adequately representing its case. Consequently, the tribunal restored both issues to the AO for re-adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126287 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Statistical purposes; Restored; Survive
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 592 & 593/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2012-13) Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Multicoat Vinimay (P) Ltd. 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata., Kolkata, West Bengal, 700007 Vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Kolkata. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAECM2381F Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sallong Yaden, DR Date of hearing: 21.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062042715(1) vide order dated 05.03.2024 for A.Y. 2012-13. ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 is against the dismissal of the appeal on the quantum by the ld. CIT (A). ITA No. 593/KOL/2024 is against the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee in respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 02. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT (DR) represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in the course of assessment the issue in respect of assailing the investment during the relevant Page | 2 ITA No.592 & 593/KOL/2024 Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 assessment year but which were held from earlier years is in question. It was submitted that admittedly the assessee had not provided all the details before the ld. AO and the order of the ld. AO was an ex-parte order. It was submitted that the ld. AO had issued notice to the email [e-mail], whereas the portal of the assessee itself clearly shows the email to be [e-mail]. The ld. AR drew our attention to the page no. 2 of the Paper Book which reads as follows:- 04. Page no.4 of the Paper Book such as the copy of the portal which reads as under:- Page | 3 ITA No.592 & 593/KOL/2024 Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 05. It was submitted that as the notices had been sent to the wrong address, the assessee could not represent its matter before the ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted that he had no objection if the issues of the appeals are restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It was the submission that before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee had provided all the details but the ld. CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without even calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer. 06. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that he had no objection if the issues of appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for re-adjudication. Page | 4 ITA No.592 & 593/KOL/2024 Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 07. We have heard the rival submissions. On perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the notice for hearing has been sent by the ld. AO to the wrong email address. The assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause in not being able to provide all the details before the ld. AO. This being so in the interest of justice, the issues of appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication, after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. 09. In respect of ITA No. 593/KOL/2024, which is against the confirmation of the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As it is noticed that the issue in the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication, hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, no longer survive. In this circumstance, the penalty as levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) stands dismissed. 010. In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 593/KOL/2024 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 21.04.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 5 ITA No.592 & 593/KOL/2024 Multicoat Vinimay Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2012-13 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "