COWTOWN INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD(SECCESSOR TO CAPACITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1416/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year :2015-16) M/s. Cowtown Infotech Services Vs. ACIT 12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd., (Successor to Capacity Mumbai Projects Pvt. Ltd.,) Room No.145, 412, 4th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 17G, Vardhaman Chamber M.K.Road, Cawasji Patel Road Mumbai – 400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No.AADCH3654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 04/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 04/08/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in ITA No.1416/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-20/IT-10210/2017-18 dated 15/01/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 29/12/2017 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax-12(2)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, we find that the assessee had raised a preliminary ground of violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the ld. CIT(A) had passed an exparte order while dismissing the appeal of the

2 ITA No.1416/Mum/2019 M/s. Cowtown Infotech Services Pvt. Ltd.,

assessee. The ld. AR stated before us that assessee had changed its address and the same was not intimated to the ld. CIT(A) and hence, the notice of hearing was sent to the earlier address of the assessee company. Due to this reason, the assessee could not secure its attendance before the ld. CIT(A) through the authorised representative. This had eventually resulted in ld. CIT(A) confirming the various additions made by the ld. AO. The ld. AR before us pleaded that assessee be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld.CIT(A). Considering the facts of the case and the issues involved therein as raised in the grounds of appeal, we find that this is a fit case for restoring the issue to the file to the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). But we find that the mistake lies on the part of the assessee by not intimating the new address to the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the assessee while restoring the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The assessee is directed to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the ITAT Rules on or before 31/08/2021. The ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to take up this appeal only after satisfying whether the assessee has complied with the payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the ITAT Rules. With these directions, the appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/08/2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 04/08/2021

3 ITA No.1416/Mum/2019 M/s. Cowtown Infotech Services Pvt. Ltd.,

KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai