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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 593/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)13 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice was sent to the wrong email address, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from providing details to the AO. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication. The penalty appeal was dismissed as it would not survive if the quantum appeal was restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A) order. ITA No. 592/KOL/2024 was against the dismissal of the quantum appeal, and ITA No. 593/KOL/2024 was against the dismissal of the penalty appeal. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notice to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from presenting its case properly.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be restored to the AO for re-adjudication due to the notice being sent to an incorrect email address, and consequently, the fate of the penalty levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Hearing: 21.04.2025Pronounced: 21.04.2025

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. is against the dismissal of the appeal on the quantum by the ld. CIT (A).

271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

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

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that in the course of assessment the issue in respect of assailing the investment during the relevant

4.

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

5.

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.

6.

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.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.

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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →