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

Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT (DR) represented on behalf of the Revenue.

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 no.4 of the Paper Book such as the copy of the portal which reads as under:-

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.

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. 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.